Cogency, Warrant Transmission-Increase and non-Ideal Thinkers

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly ◽

10.1111/papq.12211 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 99 ◽

pp. 23-43

Author(s):

Manuel Pérez Otero

Keyword(s):

Warrant Transmission

Download Full-text

Replies Part IV: Warrant Transmission and Entitlement

Mind, Meaning, and Knowledge ◽

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278053.003.0018 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 451-486 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Crispin Wright

Keyword(s):

Warrant Transmission

Download Full-text

Failures of Warrant Transmission: The Role of Presupposition

Erkenntnis ◽

10.1007/s10670-018-9970-2 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 84 (3) ◽

pp. 535-557

Author(s):

Thomas Lockhart

Keyword(s):

Warrant Transmission

Download Full-text

II—Martin Davies: Epistemic Entitlement, Warrant Transmission and Easy Knowledge

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume ◽

10.1111/j.0309-7013.2004.00122.x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 78 (1) ◽

pp. 213-245 ◽

Cited By ~ 61

Author(s):

Martin Davies

Keyword(s):

Easy Knowledge ◽

Epistemic Entitlement ◽

Warrant Transmission

Download Full-text

Wright on McKinsey One More Time

Logos & Episteme ◽

10.5840/logos-episteme20211215 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 101-116

Author(s):

Simon Dierig ◽

Keyword(s):

A Priori ◽

Transmission Failure ◽

The Third ◽

Warrant Transmission ◽

Better Than

In this essay, Crispin Wright’s various attempts at solving the so-called McKinsey paradox are reconstructed and criticized. In the first section, I argue against Anthony Brueckner that Wright’s solution does require that there is a failure of warrant transmission in McKinsey’s argument. To this end, a variant of the McKinsey paradox for earned a priori warrant is reconstructed, and it is claimed that Wright’s putative solution of this paradox is best understood as drawing on the contention that there is a transmission failure in the argument in question. In section II, I focus on Wright’s views in the second part of his pivotal article on the McKinsey paradox (published in 2003). It is argued that the solution to the paradox proposed there by Wright is convincing if his theory of entitlements is accepted. In the third section, however, I raise an objection against Wright’s account of entitlements. Finally, in section IV, Wright’s views in his most recent essay on the McKinsey paradox are examined. It is shown that his new solution to this problem does not work any better than his earlier attempts at solving it.

Download Full-text