This paper argues for several related theses. First, the epistemological position that knowledge requires safe belief can be motivated by views in the philosophy of science, according to which good explanations show that their explananda are robust. This motivation goes via the idea—recently defended on both conceptual and empirical grounds—that knowledge attributions play a crucial role in explaining successful action. Second, motivating the safety requirement in this way creates a choice point—depending on how we understand robustness, we'll end up with different conceptions of safety in epistemology. Lastly, and most controversially, there's an attractive choice at this point that will not vindicate some of the most influential applications of the safety-theoretic framework in epistemology, e.g., Williamson's (2000) arguments against the KK principle, and luminosity.

中文翻译：

---

安全、解释、迭代

本文论证了几个相关的论文。首先，知识需要安全信念的认识论立场可以受到科学哲学观点的推动，根据这些观点，好的解释表明它们的解释是稳健的。这种动机来自于最近在概念和经验基础上都得到辩护的观点，即知识归因在解释成功的行动中起着至关重要的作用。其次，以这种方式激发安全需求会产生一个选择点——根据我们对稳健性的理解，我们最终会在认识论中得到不同的安全概念。最后，也是最有争议的，在这一点上有一个有吸引力的选择，它不会证明安全理论框架在认识论中的一些最有影响力的应用，例如威廉姆森