from access externalism to e=k

I’m currently writing a paper arguing that access externalism supports E=K. Access Externalism is this:

access externalism: Necessarily, justification supervenes on what one is in a position to know.

In the first part of the paper I motivate Access Externalism (although I do that a lot more in other work. Also see this post). The aim of the second half of the paper is to show that Access Externalism naturally leads to E=K. I thought this was going to be very straightforward, but quickly found out that some assumptions were needed.

First and foremost, I need to show that Access Externalism endorses Doxastic:

doxastic: Necessarily, if A believes q and is justified in believing q because of the members of S, then A knows all of the members of S.

We need to make two assumptions in order to get from Access Externalism to Doxastic. The first is a benign assumption about the basing requirement:

belief: Necessarily, if A bases her belief in q on p, then A believes p.

Belief combined with Access Externalism means that in order for A’s belief in q to be justified by the members of S, A must (1) be in a position to know the members of S and (2) believe the members of S. But that still doesn’t get us all the way to Doxastic, because it’s possible for (1) and (2) to obtain without A knowing the members of S. This happens when A doesn’t believe the members of S responsibly. So, in order to get to Doxastic we need to assume Responsible as well.

responsible: Necessarily, if A believes q and is justified in believing q by the members of S, then A responsibly believes each member of S.

Access Externalism combined with Belief and Responsible entail that in order for A to be justified in believing q because of the members of S, A must (1) be in a position to know the members of S, (2) believe the members of S and (3) responsibly believe the members of S. In other words, they must know the members of S. In other words, Doxastic is true.

I think that both Belief and Responsible are independently plausible. Anyone see any problems with either of them?

Also, feedback here is still encouraged.

~ by Errol Lord on June 12, 2008.