Antiskeptical Conditionals

Empirical knowledge exists in the form of antiskeptical conditionals , which are propositions like [if I am not undetectably deceived, then I am holding a pen]. Such conditionals, despite their trivial appearance, have the same essential content as the categorical propositions that we usually discuss, and can serve the same functions in science and practical reasoning. This paper sketches out two versions of a general response to skepticism that employs these conditionals. The first says that our ordinary knowledge attributions can safely be replaced by statements using antiskeptical conditionals, which provides a way around the standard sort of skeptical argument while accepting its soundness with respect to the usual targets. The second analyzes the objects of our ordinary knowledge attributions as antiskeptical conditionals, which allows us to refute, not just evade, the skeptic's argument. Both versions compare favorably to the best-known current approaches to skepticism, including semantic contextualism.     

JOB CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VALIDITY GENERALIZATION RESULTS

This paper compares two job classification methods for showing the appropriateness of cognitive tests in settings that were not involved in supplying data for a validity generalization analysis. One approach was an elaborate quantitative procedure that involved a lengthy job inventory and a multivariate item analysis. This approach was shown to be highly successful when applied to the responses from 1179 job inventories collected in 54 petroleum-petrochemical plants from 30 different companies. The other procedure involved simple job classification judgments by supervisors and incumbents. This latter approach was shown to be as effective, but was much less time consuming and costly. Professional and legal implications of these findings are discussed.