ABSTRACT
This Chapter develops a sensitivity account of checking. It begins by sketching two necessary conditions on checking, first that S uses the method with the intention of determining whether p is true and second that M is an appropriate method with respect to p . In section 3.1, it discusses the first condition, which specifies the intentional features of the checking subject. Furthermore, it introduces some terminology and distinguishes between ex ante reports about checking and ex post reports along with defining the technical notion of checking that p is true. Section 3.1 ends by providing a natural language analysis concerning ‘checking’ and related concepts such as ‘determining,’ ‘checking out,’ ‘double-checking,’ ‘testing,’ and ‘settling a question.’ In the following sections, 3.2-3.9, this chapter discusses the second condition on checking, which concerns the modal features of the method used. It defines any method that is appropriate with respect to p as a checking method for p . First, it provides a detailed account of modal features of methods instead of modal features of beliefs . Second, it sketches the features of ideal methods for checking whether p . Third, it argues that sensitivity is necessary for checking and, fourth, it explains why safety is not sufficient. Fifth, it contends that a sensitivity-based checking account does not suffer from Luper-Foy’s problem of one-sided methods. Sixth, it elaborates necessary and sufficient conditions for checking methods that are asymmetric with respect to p and ¬ p . Seventh, it analyzes the relations between the provided account of checking and existing knowledge accounts. Finally, it is argued that the proposed checking account does not suffer from the generality problem and that Kripke’s barn façade example does not pose a counter-example.
