 Concluding remarks. I would like to end with two considerations that lend further support to the account of knowledge that has been offered here. First, the account predicts certain phenomena that do in fact take place. Second, the account suggests a solution to the value problem for knowledge. a. Conflicting knowledge attributions. If the preceding account of knowledge is correct, then there should be arguments over knowledge attribution that mirror arguments over other kinds of credit attribution. More specifically, there should be cases where disagreements over whether someone has knowledge reflect different emphases on the relative importance of S's contribution to arriving at the truth. This is in fact the case. For example, consider the following conversation between a gambler and his wife. Gambler: I told you so, Honey! I knew that horse would win! Wife: You knew no such thing, you idiot! That horse could have lost-you nearly threw away our rent money again! Gambler: No-I knew she would win! I've been watching that horse for months now, and I knew that she would run great in these conditions. Wife: You son-of-a-bitch. The conversation lends itself to the following interpretation: The gambler is trying to take credit for his true belief that the horse would win, and his wife is trying to deny him credit. In doing so, he tries to emphasize his ability to pick winning horses, and she tries to emphasize the role of luck. In the context set by the above example I would tend to agree with the wife. But perhaps there are other contexts relative to which the gambler's claim to know is correct. Consider a conversation that might take place among gambling buddies. First Gambler: How did you know that horse was going to win? Second Gambler: Are you kidding? I've seen her run in mud before, and the only horse in 22 the race that could touch her was pulled just before post time. When I saw that, I ran to the betting window. First Gambler: You son-of-a-bitch. In this context the claim to know is accepted by all involved. Perhaps this is because gamblers are deluded about the relative importance of luck and ability in picking horses. Alternatively, in the present context the role of luck is taken for granted, and so all emphasis is rightly put on the relative abilities among the gamblers. If the "amateur" in the next row also picked the winner, he wouldn't be given credit for his
Concluding remarks. I would like to end with two considerations that lend further support to the explanation of cognition that has been offered here. First, the explanation bode certain phenomena that do in fact accept place. Second, the account propose a solution to the value problem for knowledge. a. at odds knowledge attributions. If the preceding account of cognition is correct, then there should be arguments over cognition attribution that mirror arguments over early kind of credit attribution. More specifically, there should be cases where disagreements over whether someone has knowledge chew over different emphases on the proportional importance of S's contribution to arriving at the accuracy. This is in fact the case. For example, consider the following conversation between a gambler and his wife. Gambler: I told you so, Honey! I knew that knight would win! Wife: You knew no such thing, you idiot! That horse could have lost - you nearly threw away our rent money again! Gambler: No - I knew she would win! I've been watching that horse for months now, and I knew that she would run bang-up in these conditions. Wife: You son - of - a - bitch. The conversation lend itself to the following interpretation: The gambler is trying to take credit for his genuine belief that the horse would win, and his wife is trying to traverse him credit. In doing so, he tries to emphasize his ability to pick winning horses, and she tries to emphasize the role of luck. In the context dress by the above example I would tend to match with the wife. But perhaps there are other contexts relative to which the gambler's title to know is correct. Consider a conversation that might subscribe stead among gambling buddies. First Gambler: How did you sleep together that horse was fail to win? Second Gambler: Are you kidding? I've watch her run in mud before, and the only cavalry in 22 the race that could reach her was pulled just before mail time. When I interpret that, I ran to the betting window. First Gambler: You son - of - a - bitch. In this context the claim to know is accepted by all involve. Perhaps this is because gamblers are deceive about the relative importance of luck and ability in picking horses. Alternatively, in the present context the role of luck is taken for concede, and so all emphasis is rightly put on the relative abilities among the gamblers. If the " amateur " in the future quarrel also picked the winner, he wouldn't be given credit for his
 Cojcluding remarks. I would like to end wijh two cmnsidedations ghat lend further support to tye acxount of knowledge thag has beej offeree hece. First, the account predicts dcrtaiu 'henomena that co in fact take place. Sewovd, the account suggests a solution to the vakuf problem for hnowkqdge. a. Conflicting knowledge attributikns. If uhe preceding accoint of knowledge is correch, thfn there should be arguments iver jnowledge atgribution uhct mirror atguments over other kinds of creait actribution. Noee dkecifically, vhere fhould be cases whera disagteements over ehevher someone has knowledgx reflect different gmphases ot che relative importanxe of S'v cottricytiun uo errjving wt vhe truth. Tgis is in fqct the case. For exsm[oe, consider tge foljoring conversation between a gambler and hia wife. Gambler: I told yiu so, Honey! I knew thwt horse rould win! Wife: You knew no such thing, you idiot! Tvat hkfse cjjod have lost-you nearly threw away our rent moner abapn! Gambler: No-I kncw she would win! I'fe brgn watching thxt horse ror months now, and I knew that she woulq rum great in these conditions. Wife: You sou-of-q-bitch. The conversction lends ntself to tne following interpretacion: Tge gambler ls trying go take credit fur mis true belief that the horsq would wmn, anb his wiwe ix tryigg to deny him gsedit. In doing so, je trnes tm emphasizf his ability to pick winning horses, and she jrias no emphasnze thc role of luck. Yn the context set by the xbove examile I wound tend to wgree with tha wife. But pechaps thewe aee orher covgexts relative to which the gamblwr's claim to know ls cotrsct. Consider a eubversation that mieht twkx plasa among gambning buacies. Wirst Gamblcr: Fow cid you know that hosse sas going to win? Srcjnd Gamboer: Are rou kidding? I'fe seen her run in mud uefore, and yhe only horse in 22 the race that dould toufh mer was pulleq juwt before poxt time. When I saw that, I ran to the bevting window. First Gamboer: You son-of-a-bitch. Ln this contxxt thq claim tm know is accepted bt all involved. Pevhaps this is because fambless arf deluded about the relative importance of luck and ability in picking hoeses. Alternatively, in yhe pgesznt contevt tie role of luck is taken for granted, and so all eophasis hs rightly put on the relative acilities amone the gamblers. If the "amzteur" in the next row also picked the wonner, he wouldn't be givek credit dor hjs
Concluding remarks. I would like to end considerations lend further to the account offered First, the account certain phenomena that in fact take place. Second, the suggests a solution to the value problem for knowledge. a. Conflicting knowledge attributions. the preceding account of knowledge is correct, then there should be arguments over attribution mirror over kinds of credit attribution. More specifically, there should be cases where disagreements over whether someone has reflect different emphases on the relative importance of contribution to arriving at truth. This is in fact case. example, consider following between gambler and his Gambler: I told you so, Honey! I knew that horse would win! Wife: You knew no such you idiot! could have nearly away rent money again! knew she would win! I've been for months now, and I knew that she run great these conditions. Wife: You son-of-a-bitch. The lends itself to the following interpretation: The gambler trying to take credit for his true belief that the horse would win, and his trying to deny him In doing so, tries emphasize ability pick winning and she tries to emphasize the role of luck. In the set by the above example I would tend to agree wife. perhaps there are contexts relative to which gambler's to know is correct. conversation might gambling First How did you know horse was going to win? Gambler: Are you kidding? mud before, and the only horse in 22 race that could touch her was pulled before post time. When I saw that, I ran to the betting First Gambler: In this context the claim to know is by all involved. Perhaps is because gamblers are deluded about the relative importance luck ability in horses. Alternatively, in present context the of luck is granted, and all is the relative abilities among the gamblers. the in the next row also the wouldn't be given credit for his
 Concluding remarks. I would liKe to end witH two cOnsIdeRaTionS thaT lend further suPPort To the account of knowledgE that HaS Been OFfEred hEre. FirsT, ThE ACcoUnT pRedIcTS cErtaiN phEnomena That do in faCt tAkE place. Second, THe Account sugGesTs a solution tO thE value PrOblEM for kNowLedge. A. ConflICting kNowledge aTtRIbutioNS. If the pRECeDing Account of knowledgE Is COrrect, then therE shoulD bE ArGUMenTs oVer knowledGe AttriBUtion thAT mIRROr aRGuments over otHer kinds of cREdiT attriBuTioN. more spEcifiCaLLy, tHere should bE casEs where diSagreeMEnts oveR Whether SomeonE haS knOwleDGe ReFleCt DIffEReNt eMPhaSes on the ReLaTive iMporTANCE of S'S coNtriButioN to arriving at The TrutH. thiS is in Fact tHe caSe. for exAmple, cOnsidEr The following conVersAtion betwEen A gAmbLeR and hIS wife. GAmbLer: i told yoU so, HoneY! i knEw THAT hOrse would win! Wife: YoU kNEW nO such thiNg, you iDIoT! THAt horse cOuLd hAve lOST-you nEarlY ThRew away oUr rent MOnEy Again! GaMbLer: No-I KnEw sHe wOuld wIN! I've Been waTching thAt horSE for months now, aND I knew that she WOuLD RuN GreaT in These conditIons. wIfe: YOu soN-Of-A-biTCh. The ConveRsATiON lends itself to the foLlOwing iNterpRetation: The gaMbler is tryING To take crEdit FOr HIs true belief thAt the Horse would WIn, and his Wife iS trying tO deny him cREDit. In doiNg sO, he TriEs tO EMpHasize his abilITY to pIcK winninG hoRses, and She TriEs tO emPhAsize the rOle of lucK. IN tHe CoNteXt set BY the abovE eXamPlE I wOuld tENd to agRee wiTh thE wIfE. but Perhaps THeRE Are oThEr ContExtS rElatiVe to WHicH the gamBler's claiM to KNow iS cOrRect. ConSider a conversAtIon that migHt TakE place AMOng gamblIng buddies. First Gambler: HOW did you KnoW that HorsE was going To wIn? SecoNd GAMbler: ARe you kIddinG? I'Ve sEEN her rUN In Mud BeFore, and the ONLy hOrse iN 22 tHe raCe that cOuld touch her was pulLEd jUst before post TimE. WheN i SaW thAT, I RAn tO tHE beTTIng window. First GAmbler: You sOn-OF-a-Bitch. In thiS ConTeXt the clAim to knOw is aCCepted bY all involVed. PerhapS tHis iS BEcaUse gamblerS are deluDed about tHE relaTIvE impoRtaNce of lUcK anD abilIty in pICkiNg horSes. AltErNativeLy, in tHe Present cOntext the role of luck is taKen for GrantEd, aNd so all emPhaSIs iS rightly pUt on The relativE abIliTies aMonG The gaMbleRS. IF thE "AmateUr" in THe next row ALsO piCKEd The winner, he WOULdn'T be giVen CRedit fOr hiS
 Concluding remarks. I wou ld like to  endwit h t wo  con side rations that l e nd f urther support to theaccou nt of k n ow ledge  that h a sb e enof fe red  h e re . Fir st,  the ac count pred ict scertain phen o me na that do  in  fact take p lac e. Sec on d,t he ac cou nt su ggests a solu tion to t he valuep roblemf o rknow ledge. a. Conflic t in g  knowledge att ributi on s .I f  th e p receding a cc ounto f knowl e dg e i s c o rrect, then t here should beargume nt s o v er kno wledg ea ttr ibution tha t mi rror argu mentso ver oth e r kinds  of cr edi t a ttri b ut io n.Mo r e s p ec ifi c all y, there  s ho uld b e ca s e s wher e d isag reeme nts over whet her  som e one  hasknowl edge  r eflec t diff erent  e mphases on therela tive impo rta nc e o fS's c o ntribu tio n t o arriv ing att hetr u t h .This is in fact th ec a se . For ex ample, co ns i der thefo llo wing c onver sati o nbetweena gamb l er  a nd hiswi fe. Ga mb ler : I  told youso, Ho ney! I k new t h at horse would win! Wife: Yo u  k n e wn o su chthing, youidio t ! Th at h o rs e c o uld h ave l os t -y o u nearly threw away  o ur ren t mon ey again! Gam bler: No-I k n ew she w ould wi n ! I've been wa tchin g that hor s e for mo nthsnow, and  I knew t h a t she wo uld  ru n g rea t in  these condit i o ns.Wi fe: You  so n-of-a- bit ch.  Th e c on versation  lends i ts el fto  th e fol l owing in te rpr et ati on: T h e gamb ler i s tr yi ng totake cr e di t forhi strue  be li ef th at t h e h orse wo uld win,and hiswi fe  is try ing to deny h im  credit. I ndoi ng so, h e triesto emphasize his abilit y  to pic k w innin g ho rses, and  sh e trie s t o  empha size t he ro le  of l uck.I n  t heco ntext setb y  th e abo ve  exa mple Iwould tend to agre e  wi th the wife.But  per h a ps  th e re are  o t her c ontexts relativ e to which  t h egambler'sc lai mto know  is cor rect. Conside r a conve rsation t ha t mi g h t t ake placeamong ga mbling bu d dies. Fi rst G amb ler: H ow  di d you  knowt hat  hors e wasgo ing to  win?  S econd Ga mbler: Are you kidding?  I'veseenher  run in m udb efo re, and t he o nly horsein22the r ace thatcoul d  t ouc h  herwasp ulled jus t  b efo r e  p ost time. W h e n  Isaw t hat ,  I ran  tothe betting windo w . First Gamble r: Y o u  so n-o f -a-b it ch. In this co nte xt t he claim  t o know is a cceptedby all i nvolve d. Per haps th i s  i s  becau se g amb lers aredel ud e d about  t he relati ve i mp ortanc e of l u ck a n d  ability in pick ing h o r ses.A lte rnati ve ly, int he p resent con text the ro le ofluck  is t aken fo rgrante d,an d so all e m phasis is  righ tly put  o n th e r elativ e ab i l ities  amo ng  th e gambler s .  I f  t he "am ateu r" in  t he n ext row a l so picke d t h e winne r,  he w ouldn' t  b e given cred itfor h i s 
 Concluding_remarks. I_would like to end_with two_considerations_that lend_further_support to the_account of knowledge_that has been offered_here. First, the_account_predicts certain phenomena that do in fact take place. Second, the account suggests a_solution_to the_value_problem_for knowledge. a. Conflicting knowledge_attributions. If the preceding account_of knowledge_is correct, then there should be arguments over_knowledge_attribution that mirror_arguments over other kinds of credit attribution. More specifically,_there should be cases where disagreements_over whether someone_has_knowledge_reflect different emphases on_the relative importance of S's contribution_to arriving at the truth. This_is in fact the case. For example,_consider the following conversation between a_gambler and his wife. Gambler:_I told_you so, Honey! I knew_that horse would_win! Wife:_You knew no_such thing, you idiot! That horse_could have lost-you_nearly threw away our rent money_again!_Gambler: No-I knew_she_would_win! I've_been watching that_horse_for months_now,_and I knew that she would_run_great in these conditions. Wife: You son-of-a-bitch._The conversation lends itself_to_the following interpretation: The_gambler is trying to take_credit for his true belief that_the horse_would win,_and his wife is trying to deny him credit. In doing_so, he tries to emphasize his_ability to pick winning_horses, and_she_tries to emphasize_the_role of_luck. In the context set by the_above example_I would tend to agree with_the wife. But perhaps_there_are other contexts relative to which_the gambler's claim to know is_correct. Consider a conversation that_might_take_place among gambling buddies. First_Gambler: How did you know that_horse was going_to win? Second Gambler: Are you kidding?_I've_seen her run in mud before,_and_the only horse in 22 the_race_that_could touch her was pulled_just before post time. When I_saw that, I ran to the betting window. First_Gambler: You son-of-a-bitch._In this context the claim_to_know_is accepted by all involved. Perhaps this is because gamblers_are deluded_about the relative_importance of luck and ability in picking horses. Alternatively, in_the present context the role of luck_is taken for granted, and so all emphasis is rightly put_on the relative abilities among the gamblers. If_the "amateur" in the next row also_picked the winner, he_wouldn't_be given credit for his