Transmission arguments against closure of knowledge base the case against closure on the premise that a necessary condition for knowledge is not closed.Warfield argues that this kind of argument is fallacious whereas Brueckner,Murphy and Yan try to rescue it. According to them, the transmission argument is no longer fallacious once an implicit assumption is made explicit. I defendWarfield's objection by arguing that the various proposals for the unstated assumption either do not avoid the fallacy or turn the central premise of the transmission argument, namely that a necessary condition is not closed, into a redundant and superfluous premise. I conclude that Warfield's advice is still to be heeded: Arguments against closure must not rely essentially on the premise that a necessary condition for knowledge is not closed.
展开▼
