Second Paper, due Monday, November 12^th

• On pp. 361-362 of "A Causal Theory of Knowing" Alvin Goldman describes two lava cases: a case in which a subject S does know, on the basis of seeing solidified lava in a certain area, that a certain nearby mountain erupted long ago; and a case in which a subject S does not know, despite seeing solidified lava in a certain area, that a certain nearby mountain erupted long ago. The two subjects have the same evidence; but one has knowledge where the other doesn't.
   
  1. Briefly describe the two cases, emphasizing the relevant simliarites and differences between them. (Spend no more than one page on this part, preferably less.)
      
  2. Briefly explain how Goldman's causal theory accounts for knowledge in the one case and lack of it in the other. (Spend no more than one page on this part, preferably less.)
      
  3. Decide whether David Lewis's theory, presented in "Elusive Knowledge" could account for there being knowledge in the one lava case but not in the other. If you think Lewis's theory does account for the difference, explain how it does: making sure to appeal specifically to his analysis of knowledge and to say which of his Rules for properly ignoring possibilities are relevant to this case. If you think Lewis's theory does not account for the difference, defend your answer.
      

Please be as concise and clear as possible. Always provide specific page references and bibliographic information for work you discuss. (When you attribute a view to an author, you must cite the work and page number of the passage on which your attribution is based. All quotes must be provided with page references.)

This page created by Delia Graff
URL: http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/research/graff/phil361/secondpaper.html
Last modified: Tue 10/29/2001