Grazer Philosophische Studien

Volume 60, 2000

Robert A. Imlay
Pages 119-124

The Skeptical Argument from Error
A Diagnosis and a Refutation

I seek to show that the skeptical argument from error turns crucially on the following assumption: because Bill1 with the same degree of evidence as Bill2 failed merely by virtue of John's1 absence to know that John1 would be at the party, then Bill2 must have got things right by coincidence if he got them right at all, as to the actual attendance of John2. And so he does not have knowledge. But the conclusion that coincidence entered here is a non-sequitur.