Skip to main content
Log in

Skepticism, relevant alternatives, and deductive closure

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

My view is that the relevant alternative position should be conceived of as in two parts:

  1. (1)

    With respect to many propositions, to establish a knowledge claim is to be able to support it as opposed to a limited number of alternatives — i.e., only those which are relevant in the context.

  2. (2)

    With respect to many propositions — in particular those which are such that their negations are not relevant alternatives in the context in question — we simply know them to be true and do not need evidence, in the normal sense, that they, rather than their negations, are true. So conceived, the relevant alternative view neither supports the abandonment of deductive closure, nor is such abandonment in any way needed to provide the relevant alternative view with an answer to the skeptic, insofar as he can be answered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stine, G.C. Skepticism, relevant alternatives, and deductive closure. Philosophical Studies 29, 249–261 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411885

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00411885

Keywords

Navigation