[Ayer, 1956], ch. 1.  [Pollock, 1986], ch 1.
 [Audi, 1998], ch. 8  [Dancy, 1985], chs 2, 3.
 [Nozick, 1981], pp. 167-78.  [Lehrer, 1990], ch. 1.
 [Kim, 1994].  [Gettier, 1963].


Is it possible to state the necessary and sufficient conditions of `p knows that q'? If it were not, would it necessarily matter? Should the concept of cause feature in an analysis?


Audi, 1998
Audi, R. (1998).
Routledge, London.

Ayer, 1956
Ayer, A. J. (1956).
The Problem of Knowledge.
Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Bernecker and Dretske, 2000
Bernecker, S. and Dretske, F., editors (2000).
Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dancy, 1985
Dancy, J. (1985).
An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Gettier, 1963
Gettier, Jr., E. (1963).
Is justified true belief knowledge?
Analysis, 23:121-3.
Also in [Huemer, 2002], [Bernecker and Dretske, 2000], and [Griffiths, 1967].

Griffiths, 1967
Griffiths, A. P., editor (1967).
Knowledge and Belief.
Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford, Oxford.

Huemer, 2002
Huemer, M., editor (2002).
Epistemology: Contemporary Readings.
Routledge, London.

Kim, 1994
Kim, J. (1994).
What is `Naturalized Epistemology?'.
In Kornblith, H., editor, Naturalizing Epistemology, pages 33-55. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, second edition.

Lehrer, 1990
Lehrer, K. (1990).
Theory of Knowledge.
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Nozick, 1981
Nozick, R. (1981).
Philosophical Explanations.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pollock, 1986
Pollock, J. L. (1986).
Contemporary Theories of Knowledge.
Rowman & Littlefield, Savage, Maryland.

Robert L. Frazier 2011-05-10