{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Further Discussion of the

Further Discussion of the - Further Discussion of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Further Discussion of the "Discrimination and Counterfactuals" Strategy Question: Can the Fourth Account Be Derived from the Third Account? In the Henry and the barn case, it is assumed that Henry is well acquainted with barns. Suppose that is not so. Indeed, suppose that, though it has been explained to Henry both what a building is, and what a movie set, building facade is like, Henry, having lived an unusually sheltered life, has been exposed to neither. Henry is now exposed to his first building - a barn. Does Henry know that it is a building, rather than a movie set, building facade? It seems to me very plausible to say that he does not, on the grounds that he has no basis for believing that his present visual experiences are more likely to be caused by a building than by a backless facsimile. If this is right, then, in the original Henry case, it would seem that a crucial piece of evidence that justifies Henry in believing that he is seeing a barn is the evidence that barns are much more numerous than movie sets - or at least, in his part of the world.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}