his	writings,	as	do	others.12	As	far	as	I	am	aware,	however, no	one	has	offered	an	extended	defence	and	analysis	of	this	suggestion.	I	thus have	two	goals	in	this	section.	The	first	is	to	present	this	argument	–	which	I	call the	'probability-possibility'	argument	–	in	what	I	believe	to	be	its	most persuasive	form;	the	second	is	to	critique	it. We	can	understand	the	gist	of	the	argument	by	considering	an	extended thought	experiment	from	Evans.	This	is	presented	as	part	of	his	defence	of	the 'content-not-source'	objection	but	its	wording	and	structure	it	is	not	fully analogous	with	a	pure	version	of	that	objection.	This	is	because,	as	you	will	see	in the	quoted	passage	below,	it	focuses	on	a	scenario	that	combines	uncertainty	as to	the	source	of	a	command	with	knowledge	of	the	content	of	a	command,	and not	on	a	scenario	that	just	involves	knowledge	of	a	command.	The	thought experiment	is	worth	quoting	in	full: "Suppose	I	am	hiking	in	a	remote	region	on	the	border	between	Iraq	and	Iran.	I become	lost	and	I	am	not	sure	exactly	what	country	I	am	in.	I	suddenly	see	a	sign, which	(translated)	reads	as	follows:	"You	Must	Not	Leave	This	Path".	As	I	walk further,	I	see	loudspeakers,	and	from	them	I	hear	further	instructions:	"Leaving	the path	is
his 	 writings, 	 as 	 do 	 others.12 	 As 	 far 	 as 	 I 	 am 	 aware, 	 however, no 	 one 	 has 	 offered 	 an 	 unfold 	 defence 	 and 	 analysis 	 of 	 this 	 trace. 	 I 	 therefore have 	 two 	 goals 	 in 	 this 	 section. 	 The 	 inaugural 	 is 	 to 	 present 	 this 	 argument 	 – 	 which 	 I 	 name the 	' probability - possibility' 	 argument 	 – 	 in 	 what 	 I 	 think 	 to 	 be 	 its 	 most persuasive 	 form; 	 the 	 second 	 is 	 to 	 critique 	 it. We 	 can 	 sympathize 	 the 	 gist 	 of 	 the 	 argument 	 by 	 consider 	 an 	 extended thought 	 experiment 	 from 	 Evans. 	 This 	 is 	 introduce 	 as 	 part 	 of 	 his 	 defence 	 of 	 the' content - not - reservoir' 	 objection 	 but 	 its 	 wording 	 and 	 structure 	 it 	 is 	 not 	 fully analogous 	 with 	 a 	 pure 	 adaptation 	 of 	 that 	 objection. 	 This 	 is 	 because, 	 as 	 you 	 will 	 see 	 in the 	 quoted 	 passage 	 below, 	 it 	 focus 	 on 	 a 	 scenario 	 that 	 combines 	 uncertainty 	 as to 	 the 	 source 	 of 	 a 	 command 	 with 	 knowledge 	 of 	 the 	 contentedness 	 of 	 a 	 command, 	 and not 	 on 	 a 	 scenario 	 that 	 just 	 involves 	 knowledge 	 of 	 a 	 command. 	 The 	 thought experiment 	 is 	 worth 	 quoting 	 in 	 full: " Suppose 	 I 	 am 	 hiking 	 in 	 a 	 distant 	 region 	 on 	 the 	 border 	 between 	 Iraq 	 and 	 Iran. 	 I become 	 lose 	 and 	 I 	 am 	 not 	 certain 	 exactly 	 what 	 country 	 I 	 am 	 in. 	 I 	 suddenly 	 determine 	 a 	 sign, which 	 (translated) 	 reads 	 as 	 follows: 	 " You 	 Must 	 Not 	 forget 	 This 	 Path ". 	 As 	 I 	 walk further, 	 I 	 see 	 loudspeakers, 	 and 	 from 	 them 	 I 	 listen 	 further 	 instructions: 	 " Leaving 	 the path 	 is
his	aritings,	as	do	others.12	As	far	ar	I	am	aware,	howevet, bo	one	hes	offersd	an	extevded	defence	and	analysis	of	this	dutgestuon.	I	thus have	two	goals	iv	this	sectpon.	The	firwt	is	uo	present	this	argument	–	whicm	N	call bhe	'prmuability-possibikity'	argumett	–	in	what	I	belieee	go	ye	its	most persuasive	form;	the	second	is	tj	critiqie	lt. We	can	undersjand	tnq	gisf	of	the	argument	by	considering	an	extensed tholght	experiment	frok	Evans.	This	is	presented	as	parh	of	hls	defence	of	the 'conhent-not-sourxe'	obtwction	but	its	dording	and	structure	it	ia	not	fully analogous	with	a	pure	verrion	oy	that	objectuob.	Thlv	is	because,	aw	you	wpll	see	in the	qmpted	pavsage	bekow,	it	focuses	on	s	scxnaruo	that	combines	uncertamnty	as to	the	source	of	w	command	whtk	knowledge	of	the	contenr	od	a	comkand,	dnd vit	ov	a	sdeiarjo	that	uusv	involves	knkwledge	of	a	cimmand.	The	thought exkerynent	is	worth	qukting	ig	ftll: "Suppose	I	am	hiking	in	a	remote	region	on	tht	bordsr	between	Iraq	and	Iran.	I bwcome	lost	and	I	am	not	surg	exactly	whwt	country	I	am	in.	I	suddenly	see	a	sign, which	(translated)	redds	as	houlocw:	"You	Mjwt	Jot	Leave	This	Path".	As	I	walk further,	I	see	loudspeakewa,	amd	nrom	them	I	hear	furbher	instructions:	"Lesvlnb	jhe path	is
his writings, as do others.12 As far am however, no has offered an this I thus have goals in this The first is to present this – which I call the 'probability-possibility' argument – in what I believe to its most persuasive form; the second is to critique it. We can understand gist the by an extended thought experiment from Evans. This is presented as part of his defence of the objection but its wording and structure it is fully analogous with a version of that objection. This because, you will in quoted below, it focuses a scenario that combines uncertainty as to the source of a command with knowledge of the content a command, on a that involves of a command. experiment is worth quoting in full: hiking in a remote region on the border Iraq and I become lost and I am sure exactly what country I am in. I see a sign, which (translated) reads as follows: "You Must Not Leave This Path". As further, I see loudspeakers, from them I further "Leaving path
his	writings,	as	do	others.12	As	faR	as	I	am	awarE,	howeVer, No	oNe	Has	oFferEd	an	extended	deFEnce	And	analysis	of	this	suggeStion.	i	tHUs haVE	tWo	goaLs	in	thiS	SeCTIon.	thE	fIrsT	iS	To	PreseNt	tHis	arguMent	–	which	I	CalL tHe	'probabilitY-PoSsibility'	aRguMent	–	in	what	I	bEliEve	to	bE	iTs	mOSt perSuaSive	fOrm;	the	SEcond	iS	to	critiqUe	IT. We	can	UNderstaND	ThE	gisT	of	the	argument	by	cONsIDering	an	extendEd thouGhT	ExPERimEnt	From	Evans.	THiS	is	prESented	aS	PaRT	OF	hiS	Defence	of	the 'cOntent-not-soURce'	ObjectIoN	buT	Its	worDing	aNd	STruCture	it	is	noT	fulLy analogoUs	with	A	Pure	verSIon	of	thAt	objeCtiOn.	THis	iS	BeCaUse,	As	YOu	wILl	See	IN thE	quoted	pAsSaGe	belOw,	it	FOCUSes	oN	a	sCenaRio	thAt	combines	uncErtAintY	As tO	the	sOurce	Of	a	cOmMand	wIth	knoWledgE	oF	the	content	of	a	cOmmaNd,	and not	oN	a	sCeNarIo	That	jUSt	invoLveS	knOwledge	Of	a	commANd.	THe	THOUgHt experiment	is	wortH	qUOTiNg	in	full: "supposE	i	aM	hIKing	in	a	rEmOte	RegiON	On	the	BordER	bEtween	IrAq	and	IRAn.	i bEcome	loSt	And	I	am	NoT	suRe	eXactlY	What	CountrY	I	am	in.	I	sUddenLY	see	a	sign, which	(TRanslated)	readS	As	FOLlOWs:	"YoU	MuSt	Not	Leave	THis	PATh".	As	i	walK FuRthER,	I	see	LoudsPeAKeRS,	and	from	them	I	hear	fuRtHer	insTructIons:	"Leaving	thE path	is
his	writings,	as	do	others .12	As	far 	as	I 	am 	aw ar e,	h owev er, no	one	has offe red	an	extended	defenc e	and 	a n alys i sof	th is	sugg e st i o n.Ith usha v etwo	g oal s	in	th is	section .	T he 	first	is	to pr esent	this 	ar gument	–	whi chI	call  t he' proba bil ity-p ossibi l ity'	a rgument	– 	i n 	whatI 	believ e to 	beits	most persuasi v ef orm;	the	secon d	is	t oc ri t i que 	it . We	can	u nd ersta n d	the	g i st o f 	th e 	argument	byconsidering anextend ed  th o ught	e xperi me n t	f rom	Evans.This 	is	prese nted	a s 	part	o f 	his	de fenceofthe  'co n te nt -no t- s our c e' 	ob j ect ion	butit swordi ng	a n d s truc tur e	it 	is	n ot	fully anal ogo us	w i tha	pur e	ver sion 	o f	tha t	obje ction .This	is	because ,	as 	you	will 	se einth e	quo t ed	pas sag e	b elow,	i t	focus e s	o na s ce nario	that	combine su n ce rtaintyas tot he 	s o urce	ofacom mand w ith	k nowl e dg e	of	the 	conte n tof 	a	comm an d,	and  n otona	sce n ario 	thatjust	inv olves knowledge	of	a command.	Thet ho u g ht expe rim ent	is	wort h	qu o ting 	inf ul l:" Suppo se	Iam hi k ing	in	a	remote	reg io n	on	t he	bo rder	betweenIraq	and	I r a n .	I beco me	l o st and	I	am	not	s ure	e xactly	wha t 	country 	I	am 	in.	I	s uddenly	s e e 	a	sign,  wh ich 	(t ran s l at ed)	reads	asf o llow s: 	"You	M ust 	Not	Le ave 	Th isPat h" .	As	I	wa lk furth er ,Ise e	l oudsp e akers,	a nd 	fr om 	th em	Ih ear	fu rther 	ins tr uc t ion s:	"Lea v in g thepa th 	is
his	writings,	as	do	others.12	As	far	as	I	am	aware,	however, no	one	has	offered	an	extended	defence	and	analysis	of	this	suggestion.	I	thus_have	two	goals	in	this	section.	The	first	is	to	present	this	argument	–	which	I	call the	'probability-possibility'	argument	–	in	what	I	believe	to	be	its	most_persuasive	form;	the	second	is	to	critique	it. We	can	understand	the	gist	of	the	argument	by	considering	an	extended thought	experiment	from	Evans.	This	is	presented	as	part	of	his	defence	of	the 'content-not-source'	objection	but	its	wording	and	structure	it	is	not	fully_analogous	with	a	pure	version	of	that	objection.	This	is	because,	as	you	will	see	in the	quoted	passage	below,	it	focuses	on	a	scenario	that	combines	uncertainty	as_to	the	source	of	a	command	with	knowledge	of	the	content	of	a	command,	and_not	on	a	scenario	that	just	involves	knowledge	of	a	command.	The	thought experiment	is	worth	quoting	in	full:_"Suppose	I	am	hiking	in	a	remote	region	on	the	border	between	Iraq	and	Iran.	I_become	lost	and	I	am	not	sure	exactly	what	country	I	am	in.	I	suddenly	see	a	sign, which	(translated)	reads	as	follows:	"You	Must	Not	Leave	This	Path".	As	I	walk further,	I	see	loudspeakers,	and	from	them	I	hear	further	instructions:	"Leaving	the_path	is