Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

This paper introduces a modal epistemology that centers on inference to the best explanation (i.e. abduction). In introducing this abduction-centered modal epistemology, the paper has two main goals. First, it seeks to provide reasons for pursuing an abduction-centered modal epistemology by showing that this epistemology aids a popular stance on the mind-body problem and allows an appealing approach to modality. Second, the paper seeks to show that an abduction-centered modal epistemology can work by showing that abduction can estabhsh claims about necessity/possibility (i.e. modal claims)—where 'necessity' and 'possibility' denote metaphysical necessity and possibility, ways things may or may not have been given how they actually are.

I argue that you can have a priori knowledge of propositions that neither are nor appear necessarily true. You can know a priori contingent propositions that yourecognize as such. This overturns a standard view in contemporary epistemology and the traditional view of the a priori, which restrict a priori knowledge to necessary truths, or at least to truths that appear necessary.

I develop a Russellian representationalist account of size experience that draws importantly from contemporary vision science research on size perception. Thecore view is that size is experienced in 'body-scaled' units. So, an object might, say, be experienced as two eye-level units high. The view is sharpened in response to Thompson's (forthcoming) Doubled Earth example. This example is presented by Thompson as part of an argument for a Fregean view of size experience. But I argue that the Russellian view I develop handles the Doubled Earth example in a natural and illuminating way, thereby avoiding the need to posit irreducible experiential 'modes of presentation'. I also address a kind of neo-Fregean 'reference-fixing' view of size experience, that shares features with the Russellian view developed. I give reasons for favoring the latter. Finally, I argue that Peacocke's claim that spatial experience is 'unit free' is not persuasive.