sripadastanley2012empiricaltestsinterest
/data/papers/sripadastanley2012empiricaltestsinterest/out/tables/camelot_stream_p22_t1.csv0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
factors |
|
"that |
||
affect |
||||
knowledge |
||||
are |
||||
precisely |
||||
those |
||||
that |
||||
are |
||||
relevant" |
for when |
it |
||
is |
appropriate |
"to |
||
take |
||||
something |
||||
as |
||||
a |
||||
reason |
||||
for |
||||
acting. |
||||
Jeremy" |
Fantl |
and |
||
|
7 |
"Nagel does discuss Ignorant High Stakes cases in Nagel |
||
(2008 |
2010)." |
"In short |
she provides an error" |
|
|
|
theory for these cases. We believe it is a cost for Nagel’s view that it has one account for non-ignorant |
|
|
|
|
"high stakes cases and an entirely different error-theoretic account |
||
for ignorant high stakes cases." |
IRI |
|
||
|
|
provides a much more uniform account of how stakes effect epistemic properties and relations |
that |
|
|
|
applies to both non-ignorant as well as ignorant high stakes cases. |
|
|