My Little Page

"Just give me the straight dretske, and none of your tricks!"

        

Here are some works in 

progress:


  • can someone choose hell?
  • can lovers be friends?
  • s knows p rather than q; s knows p rather than not-p; s knows p
  • revenge philosophy
  • two views of pyrrhonism in Hume 
  • a practical approach to the rationality of conspiratorial thinking
  • conspiracy theories and fortuitous errant data
  • reflections about liars and villains in Hume's of Miracles

 

 Comments welcome!

                                                              


I’m interested in how knowledge-attributing sentences are used in natural languages and what speaker utterances tell us about knowledge. For example, we often say we know the difference between x and y. What’s the best epistemic way to understand knowing the difference? We also say we know p better than q, what’s the best way to understand knowing better? We’re also in the habit of saying we know p rather than q. What’s the best way to understand contrasts in epistemology? I connect these questions to contrastive knowledge in my dissertation. More general interests include philosophical skepticism, moral dimensions of punishment, and the epistemology of conspiracy theories.


Joel Buenting   (vitae)           

Department of Philosophy
4-115 Humanities Centre
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
CANADA T6G 2E5 

(buenting@ualberta.ca)