Page 1 of 24 Evidence=Knowledge: Williamson's Solution to Skepticism PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 02 April 2013 Williamson on Knowledge Patrick Greenough and Duncan Pritchard Print publication date: 2009 Print ISBN-13: 9780199287512 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Feb-10 DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287512.001.0001 Evidence=Knowledge: Williamson's Solution to Skepticism Stephen Schiffer (Contributor Webpage) DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287512.003.0012 Abstract and Keywords A single argument template — the EPH template — can be used to generate versions of the best-known and most challenging sceptical problems. In Knowledge and its Limits, Timothy Williamson presents a theory of knowledge and evidence which he clearly intends to provide a response to scepticism in its most important forms. This chapter lays out EPH scepticism and reviews possible ways of responding to it. It then shows how elements of Williamson's theory motivate a hitherto unexplored way of responding to EPH-generated sceptical arguments. It offers reasons to doubt the correctness of Williamson's response. Keywords: EPH template, knowledge, Timothy Williamson, sceptical problems, theory of knowledge, evidence, scepticism A single argument template—the EPH template—can be used to generate versions of the best‐known and most challenging skeptical problems. In his brilliantly groundbreaking book Knowledge and its Limits Timothy Williamson presents a theory of knowledge and evidence which he clearly intends to provide a response to skepticism in its most important forms. After laying out EPH skepticism and reviewing possible ways of responding to it, I show how elements of Williamson's theory motivate a hitherto unexplored way of responding to EPH‐generated skeptical arguments. Then I offer reasons to doubt the correctness of Williamson's response.