How believing can fail to be knowing

This paper defends a simple, externalist account of knowledge, incorporating familiar conditions canvassed in the literature, and responds to Timothy Williamson's charge that any such analysis is futile because knowledge is semantically un-analyzable. The response, in short, is that even though such an account may not offer a reductive analysis--by way of more basic, non-circular concepts--it still has an explanatory advantage over Williamson's own position: it explains how belief can fail to be knowledge.