Oerter repeats his claim that “Ross's argument never gets him beyond epistemological indeterminacy.” Oddly, Oerter writes: “Oddly, Feser doesn't specifically respond to my criticism.” What is odd about this is that I did respond quite specifically, and at length, to that criticism, though it appears Oerter has missed the point of what I wrote. He seems to think that my entire response to the objection in question consists in my calling attention to the fact that Ross, and Kripke (whose work Ross makes use of), explicitly present their arguments as metaphysical rather than epistemological.
But that was just a passing remark -- rather than the substance of my reply -- and I had a good reason for making it. Oerter had in his earlier post quite reasonably called attention to comments of Ross’s that seemed to imply that the considerations he was raising really had only epistemological rather than metaphysical import. Those comments naturally raised questions about how to interpret what Ross was saying, so it was relevant to call attention to passages wherein he and Kripke make clear that they intended a metaphysical rather than merely epistemological reading.