Formatted: Right: 0.

25"

North Carolina State University Nozick’s Analysis: Does it Fail? Formatted: Different first page header

Nozick’s Analysis: Does it Fail?

Rachael Davis

PHI 333

Dr. Carroll

November 29, 2018

Formatted: Centered
 Davis 2 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Right
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
The traditional theory of knowledge holds that a person truly knows p if and only if S Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Right: 0.25"
believes in p, p is true, and S is justified in believing p. However, the third condition of this
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
theory has been argued and analyzed often by many esteemed and aspirant philosophers. Among

these philosophers is Robert Nozick, who introduced his own. Nozick’s analysis has been proven

a success with the lottery example. On the other hand, another philosopher, Pritchard, believes

that Nozick’s analysis has room to fail, which he demonstrates with the rubbish-chute example.

Pritchard’s belief can be supported by other philosophers, such as Ernest Sosa. Though Nozick’s

analysis is proven true with the lottery example, it is proven to be false with Pritchard’s rubbish

chute example, emphasizing the power of everyday knowledge and insensitive beliefs,

introduced by Sosa.

Nozick’s analysis states that S knows P if and only if (i) P is true, (ii), S believes in P,

(iii) if P weren’t true, then S would not believe in P, and (iv) if P were true, then S would believe

P (Nozick, 172). This analysis can be demonstrated clearly with the lottery case. The lottery case

states the lottery is fair with one million tickets (T1, T2…., T1,000,000), and Smith buys ticket

T3 that Smith believes that his ticket will lose, because a reliable paper reports that his ticket

didn’t win (Carroll, 2018). Smith believes that his ticket will lose, because of the high probability

that it will. In fact, his ticket will lose, and based on Nozick’s analysis, Smith knew that it would

(Carroll, 2018). The first two conditions of Nozick’s analysis are true, because it states so in the

case itself. In addition, condition (iii) is true, because if Smith’s ticket did did win the lottery,

Smith would not believe it, because based on statistical evidence, it is nearly impossible for him

toit states otherwise in the reliable paper. . Lastly, condition (iv) is true on the same grounds as

condition (iii); Smith will only believes whatever the paper states about the lottery and his
 Davis 3 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Right
ticket.that his ticket is a loser no matter what, because of the overwhelming probability against Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
him and his ticket.
Formatted: Right: 0.25"

However, a counterexample to the Nozick’s analysis is the rubbish-chute example. The Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

rubbish-chute example states that if somebody dropped their trash down the chute, they would

believe that their trash made it to the basement. If the same person dropped their trash down the

chute and the bag had been snagged on the way down, their trash would not be in the basement

(Pritchard, 446). This proves that condition (iii) of Nozick’s example is false; if the trash was

snagged and did not make it to the basement, the person who threw away the trash would not

believe that their trash did not make it to the basement.

I believe that Prichard successfully showed that Nozick’s analysis failed because of the

arguments Sosa makes against Nozick’s analysis. Sosa argues that the person who threw the

trash down the chute does not know her trash is in the basement, because of the sensitivity-based

account of knowledge; the person’s belief is insensitive (Sosa, 141). This means, “that if it were

not so that p, one would believe that p anyhow” (Sosa, 151). Expanding on and clarifying Sosa’s

point, I believe that if the person threw their trash down the chute, they would have continued to

believe that the trash made it to the basement. A factor to this belief could be the instance of

everyday knowledge. However, . similar to the lottery example, there is a very high probability

that the person’s trash made it to the basement, however there is a very small probability that it

didn’t. It is hard to break away from instances of everyday knowledge, especially in this case,

because there is not an easy and or accessible way to prove that the person’s trash made it to the

basement; it is just best to assume that it did.

Overall, Nozick’s analysis handles the lottery example; if Smith’s ticket won the lottery,

he would not believe it, however, if he didn’t win the lottery, he would, because of the statistical
 Davis 4 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
evidence against the chance of him winninghis reliance on the valid paper. Nevertheless, Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Right
Prichard counters Nozick’s analysis with the rubbish chute example, proving that condition (iii)
Formatted: Right: 0.25"

of Nozick’s theory is false. Based on the arguments made by Prichard and Sosa, I believe that Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Commented [J1]: You have got to get the details of the
Nozick’s analysis does fail with the rubbish chute example. If the trash did not make it down to original lottery example right. Focus on that in your final
draft.

the basement, the person would not believe it, because of their everyday knowledge and

insensitive belief.

References

Carroll, J (2018). Class PowerPoint Presentation. Retrieved from Moodle.

Pritchard, D. (2008) “Sensitivity, Safety, and Anti-Luck Epistemology” in Skepticism. Greco

(ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nozick, R. (1981) Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Sosa, E. (199) “How to Defeat Opposition to Moore” in Philosophical Perspectives, 13,

Epistemology. Blackwell Publishing.

DON’T FORGET TO INCLUDE A TITLE PAGE.