Knowledge, Time, and Negligence

This chapter analyses Saul Kripke's dogmatism paradox. It argues that, in order to address properly that puzzle, one needs a notion of epistemic negligence that fits naturally within a virtue-theoretic framework. Kripke's puzzle concerns a prospective intention to close one's mind. A second puzzle is closely related. Instead of the prospective intention, it concerns an antecedent belief: namely, that any further evidence will be misleading if negative. Once you attain knowledge, you virtually know that any contrary evidence will be misleading and is best ignored. When negative evidence does come forth at some later time, scholars wonder whether a person should ignore it in accordance with what they already know. This problem is resolved by noting that knowledge can be lost with a change of evidence.