Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: an Empirical Study.

Journal Article (Journal Article)

In defending his interest-relative account of knowledge, Jason Stanley relies heavily on intuitions about several bank cases. We experimentally test the empirical claims that Stanley seems to make concerning our common-sense intuitions about these cases. Additionally, we test the empirical claims that Jonathan Schaffer seems to make, regarding the salience of an alternative, in his critique of Stanley. Our data indicate that neither raising the possibility of error nor raising stakes moves most people from attributing knowledge to denying it. However, the raising of stakes (but not alternatives) does affect the level of confidence people have in their attributions of knowledge. We argue that our data impugn what both Stanley and Schaffer claim our common-sense judgments about such cases are.

Full Text

Duke Authors

Cited Authors

  • May, J; Sinnott-Armstrong, W; Hull, JG; Zimmerman, A

Published Date

  • June 2010

Published In

Volume / Issue

  • 1 / 2

Start / End Page

  • 265 - 273

PubMed ID

  • 22558061

Pubmed Central ID

  • PMC3339025

Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)

  • 1878-5166

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

  • 1878-5158

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1007/s13164-009-0014-3


  • eng