Abstract
My gratitude to Richard Greene and Nancy Balmert for their perceptive discussion of my account of warrant ('Two notions of warrant and Plantinga's solution to the Gettier problem', ANALYSIS, this issue). Actually, they begin by noting two accounts: an initial description or location as 'that which when added to true belief yields knowledge' (k-warrant), and then the account I give of what I think the item so located really is (p-warrant). There is a minor glitch ab initio, however: I said that warrant is that quantity (whatever precisely it is) enough of which is what distinguishes knowledge from mere true belief. The point here is that warrant comes in degrees. A belief constitutes knowledge only if it has a certain degree of the quantity in question; a true belief that enjoyed at least some warrant could still fail to be knowledge if it didn't have a sufficient degree of warrant (Greene and Balmert seem to me to stumble over this in their footnote 5, p. 135).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
