Comments on: What is infallibility supposed to be? http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/what-is-infallibility-supposed-to-be/ Jonathan Ichikawa's website Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:03:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/what-is-infallibility-supposed-to-be/#comment-200 Jonathan Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:43:25 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=167#comment-200 This doesn't seem to be the strong sense of infallibility that Bonjour is refuting. It's not refuted by cases in which people seem to clearly and distinctly perceive that p, but really do not. For such cases are consistent with its being introspectively knowable that they do not clearly and distinctly perceive p. This doesn’t seem to be the strong sense of infallibility that Bonjour is refuting. It’s not refuted by cases in which people seem to clearly and distinctly perceive that p, but really do not. For such cases are consistent with its being introspectively knowable that they do not clearly and distinctly perceive p.

]]> By: Brian Weatherson http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/what-is-infallibility-supposed-to-be/#comment-199 Brian Weatherson Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:14:51 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=167#comment-199 I was thinking that this is an entailment Descartes endorses: <i>I clearly and distinctly perceive that p</i> <i>Therefore, p</i> And I was also thinking that he thinks it is introspectively knowable whether a mental state is a clear and distinct perception. Those two views seem to combine to give a strong kind of infallibilism. I was thinking that this is an entailment Descartes endorses:

I clearly and distinctly perceive that p
Therefore, p

And I was also thinking that he thinks it is introspectively knowable whether a mental state is a clear and distinct perception.

Those two views seem to combine to give a strong kind of infallibilism.

]]> By: Jonathan http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/what-is-infallibility-supposed-to-be/#comment-198 Jonathan Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:35:05 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=167#comment-198 Really? You think Descartes endorses the entailment: <i>It seems to me that I clearly and distinctly perceive that p Therefore, p</i> That's never been my reading of Descarates, although I'm far from an expert. Before I go try to back up my claim that this isn't something Descartes thinks -- have I gotten you right, Brian? Are you saying Descartes would endorse that entailment? Really? You think Descartes endorses the entailment:

It seems to me that I clearly and distinctly perceive that p
Therefore, p

That’s never been my reading of Descarates, although I’m far from an expert. Before I go try to back up my claim that this isn’t something Descartes thinks — have I gotten you right, Brian? Are you saying Descartes would endorse that entailment?

]]> By: Brian W http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/what-is-infallibility-supposed-to-be/#comment-197 Brian W Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:22:28 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=167#comment-197 I don't think that's right about Descartes. He thinks that clear and distinct perception is infallible in just this strong sense. That's how he gets out of the sceptical challenge that all of out beliefs are based on fallible methods. I don’t think that’s right about Descartes. He thinks that clear and distinct perception is infallible in just this strong sense. That’s how he gets out of the sceptical challenge that all of out beliefs are based on fallible methods.

]]>