09 Oct '08 08:01>
Originally posted by NemesioWhat if I say 'I know my wife is at home, but I know it on a fallible basis,' and it turns out she is
I believe I follow what you're saying, but I'm still struggling with the following example:
What if I say 'I know my wife is at home, but I know it on a fallible basis,' and it turns out she is
in fact not home (like, as you said, for some unlikely emergency to get medicine for a child who
has suddenly fallen ill), something I find out after the fact?
...[text shortened]... was, but it turns out...'
Again, I'm sorry if I'm fumbling around here...
Nemesio
in fact not home (like, as you said, for some unlikely emergency to get medicine for a child who
has suddenly fallen ill), something I find out after the fact?
All that would show is that you were, in fact, mistaken when you claimed to know that your wife was at home. Neither the fallibilist nor the infallibilist will allow that one can know a false proposition. You were, however, obviously correct when you claimed that your basis was fallible. A main difference is the following. Suppose instead your wife really was at home. The infallibilist will deny that you could know that, given that your basis for believing it was fallible. The fallibilist, on the other hand, does not hold that the fallibility of the basis precludes your knowing it, so long as other conditions are met (such as your belief being justified).