{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.031598513011152414, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01858736059479554, 'mean_word_length': 4.638743455497382, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Open and Shut Case: Epistemic Closure in the Manifest Image

In its simplest form, the epistemic closure principle states that, necessarily, if you know that P, and you know that if P then Q, then you also know that Q. Or, at least, you would then be in a position to easily know Q by simple inference. Modifications to the principle have been proposed in response to various problems, both obvious and technical. But these problems won’t concern us here, so we’ll stick with the simple formulation. The epistemic closure principle lies at the crossroads of many trends in the theory of knowledge. Many tout it as a linchpin in the most compelling skeptical arguments (e. g. Stroud 1984). Some rely on it to motivate contextualist hypotheses about the semantics of knowledge attributions (DeRose 1995, 2009; Cohen 1999). And others appeal to it in the course of motivating views about the relationship between knowledge and practical interests (e. g. Hawthorne 2004). If epistemic closure fails, then the landscape of contemporary epistemology will need to be reconfigured.