A Modest Proposal Concerning Laws, Counterfactuals, and Explanations

Philosophical analyses may be pursued via a myriad of methods in service of as great a multitude of goals. Frequently the data upon which an analysis rests, and from which it receives its original inspiration, recount systematic connections between diverse realms of discourse or diverse sets of facts, events, actions, or objects. The aim of the project is elucidating the underlying logical, conceptual, or ontological structure that accounts for these connections. As an obvious example, John’s beliefs about what Sarah knows covary systematically with his beliefs about what Sarah believes, about what Sarah has good evidence for, and about what is actually the case. We may explain these covariations by postulating that John at least tacitly adheres to the theory that knowledge is some species of justified true belief. The results of such a preliminary investigation of correlations among beliefs may be put to various uses. If we choose to endorse John’s theory we will simply assert that what Sarah believes, what Sarah has good evidence for, and what is true determine what she knows. We may endorse John’s theory, as revealed by his inferences, but criticize his particular judgements. For example, John’s inferences may imply that he takes knowledge to require infallible evidence and so, by his own lights, he should not ascribe knowledge to Sarah since her evidence is not conclusive. Or we may instead endorse John’s judgements and recommend that he amend his inferences accordingly. And, of course, the inferences, particular judgements, and intuitions at issue may be our own.