Abstract
A sensible epistemologist may not see how she could know that she is not a Brain In a Vat (BIV); but she doesn’t panic. She sticks with her empirical beliefs, and as that requires, believes that she is not a BIV. (She does not inferentially base her belief that she is not a BIV on her empirical knowledge—she rejects that ‘Moorean’ response to skepticism.) Drawing on the psychological literature on metacognition, I describe a mechanism that’s plausibly responsible for a sensible epistemologist coming to believe she is not a BIV. I propose she thereby knows that she is not a BIV. The particular belief-forming mechanism employed explains why she overlooks this account of how she knows she is not a BIV, making it seem that there is no way for her to know it. I argue this proposal satisfactorily resolves the skeptical puzzle.
Original language | American English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 2799-2822 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Philosophical Studies |
Volume | 172 |
Issue number | 10 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1 Oct 2015 |
Keywords
- BIV
- Moore’s argument
- brain in a vat
- metacognition
- skepticism
EGS Disciplines
- Philosophy