Safety-Based Epistemology: Whither Now?
Abstract
This paper explores the prospects for safety-based theories of knowledge in the light of some recent objections.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The stronger formulations of safety have gained prominence.
“That is why the stronger formulations have gained prominence (see, e.g., Clarke-Doane 2020, 108, who follows Pritchard 2009, 34).”
From Hope for the Evolutionary Debunker: How Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and Arguments from Moral Disagreement Can Join Forces (2022) · cites this paper as Pritchard 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 192
- Authors
- Pritchard, D., & Philosophy Documentation Center
- Corresponding author
- Pritchard, Duncan
- ORCID
- Pritchard, Duncan
- Venue
- Journal of Philosophical Research
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 34
- Pages
- 33-45
- ISSN
- 1053-8364 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964014891
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 44.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Philosophical Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Keywords
- epistemology, skepticism, anti-skepticism, epistemic justification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
