Rationality

This paper argues for granular permissivism, roughly the view that evidence is sometimes permissive between doxastic attitudes at different levels of grain. The argument identifies three sources of rational slack between granularly differing doxastic states: doxastic tidiness, safety, and evidential responsiveness. After arguing for granular permissivism and contrasting it with a more familiar, Jamesian form of permissivism, I show how granular permissivism offers an escape from some arguments against permissivism. I conclude by drawing out implications from granular permissivism for questions (...) about the value of rationality and rational constraints on deference. (shrink)

Some philosophers consider knowledge the fundamental state whose presence or absence helps us decide when an inquiry is not permissible. Falbo has recently provided an alternative perspective in which epistemic improvement is what determines when an inquiry into a given question is not permitted: If it’s rational to be sure at t that, by inquiring, one won’t improve epistemically upon the question Q, then inquiry into Q is not permissible at t. In this paper, I will show that Falbo’s view (...) is incorrect and that there are counterexamples to it. Moreover, based on this criticism, I will argue that our epistemic states do not generate a duty not to inquire. However, I will suggest they have a normative role for our inquiries: They provide reasons not to inquire. Finally, by discussing this point, I will claim that even if our epistemic states do not generate duties not to inquire, they can provide a “right not to inquire”. Nonetheless, I will conclude that there cannot be epistemic states that give an absolute right not to inquire, namely, a right that entitles one not to inquire no matter the circumstances one might find oneself in. (shrink)

This chapter explores the challenge that the New Evil Demon Problem poses for so-called “externalist” theories of evidence. It argues that the best view of evidence is a liberalized form of externalism. According to that view, paradigmatic evidence in the sciences and elsewhere includes publicly known facts about the external world, evidence that we would not have in a hypothetical scenario in which we are the victims of radical deception. On the other hand, our evidence is not limited to our (...) knowledge, and for this reason even radically deceived thinkers are often in a position to have justified beliefs about their environment. Given the radical diversity of topics about which we can have justified beliefs, and the extremely wide range of circumstances in which it’s possible for us to hold such beliefs, we should embrace the idea that even radically different things can play the justifying role of evidence. (shrink)

This chapter aims to give an overview of different types of knowledge that can reasonably be considered forms of implicit self-knowledge in contrast to explicit self-knowledge. It begins by clarifying the notion of self-knowledge, focusing on its epistemic feature of immunity to error through misidentification. It then considers theories of nonconceptual self-consciousness before discussing the relation between implicit and explicit forms of representation and (self-)knowledge. It suggests that nonconceptual, implicit self-knowledge might be understood in terms of knowledge-how and discusses the (...) role of language acquisition, rationality, conceptual abilities, theory of mind, self-reflection and metacognition for the transition between implicit and explicit self-knowledge. Finally, it considers the problem of implicit bias, self-deception and oppressive socialization for gaining knowledge about one’s true self. (shrink)

Questions surrounding deep disagreement have gained significant attention in recent years. One of the central debates is metaphysical, focusing on the features that make a disagreement deep. Proposals for what makes disagreements deep include theories about hinge propositions and first epistemic principles. In this paper, I criticize this metaphysical discussion by arguing that it is methodologically flawed. Deep disagreement is a technical or semi-technical term, but the metaphysical discussion mistakenly treats it as a common-sense concept to be analyzed and captured (...) by our pre-theoretical intuitions. Since the literature on deep disagreement is subject to this fundamental confusion and deep disagreement is not a helpful umbrella term either, I propose eliminating the notion of deep disagreement from the philosophical discourse. Instead of analyzing the nature of deep disagreement, we should develop theories about different forms of disagreement, including disagreement about hinge propositions and disagreement about epistemic principles, and, in particular, a theory of rationally irresolvable disagreement. (shrink)

It can be rational to inquire into what you already know, as cases of double-checking suggest. But, I argue, this is compatible with a knowledge aim of inquiry. In general, it can be rational to pursue an aim you’ve already achieved, and inquiry is no different. In particular, I argue that to double-check what you already know is to make sure you have knowledge, and that is still to aim at knowledge.

Should you defer to individual experts? That is, when a single expert—rather than a group of experts or a expert consensus—testifies that p, should you believe that p? In this paper, I argue that the answer to this question is, generally speaking, “no.” My argument is based on the notion of a complexity‐based defeater. Some questions are complex in a sense that makes inquirers less reliable at answering them. Expert testimony tends to be about such questions. Expert testimony thus tends (...) to be subject to a complexity‐based defeater. The pressing question, then, is whether the speaker's expertise in turn defeats that complexity‐based defeater. I first draw on the extant literature to show why we cannot reliably make case‐by‐case determinations of whether a particular speaker's expertise counteracts the complexity of the particular question they are answering. Next, I argue that a speaker's status as an expert does not, in general, defeat the complexity‐based defeaters that tend to come with expert testimony. We thus should not, generally speaking, defer to individual experts. I then address some issues with the peer review system that are relevant to the core argument. Finally, I briefly discuss a path to rational deference that remains open: a path through expert judgment aggregation. (shrink)

This paper examines Hubert Dreyfus' phenomenological critique of AI in light of contemporary large language models (LLMs) and emerging hybrid neuro-symbolic systems. While Dreyfus championed connectionist approaches over rule-based AI (GOFAI), his nonconceptualist framework faces limitations when applied to modern hybrid systems that combine neural networks with symbolic reasoning. I argue that Dreyfus' failure to account for intentional content in absorbed coping creates problems for explaining how nonconceptual significance can constrain the conceptual—a crucial issue for evaluating hybrid AI systems that (...) must rationally connect statistical learning with rule-based reasoning. Drawing on later Husserlian phenomenology, the paper proposes a framework that preserves nonconceptual content while explaining its connection to the conceptual through an extended conception of judgment and rationality. This hybrid phenomenological approach better addresses the challenges posed by AI systems that integrate both connectionist and symbolic architectures. (shrink)

Despite many disagreements, contemporary theorists of rationality largely agree that substantive rationality is to be understood in terms of correctly responding to reasons. While recent literature focuses on questions about the relationship between substantive and structural rationality, or which kinds of normative reasons are involved in substantive rationality, comparatively little attention has been paid to the question of what it is to correctly respond to reasons. Recent dispositionalist accounts of correctly responding to reasons mark an exception to this trend. In (...) this paper, I argue that dispositionalist accounts make a crucial mistake in eschewing an essential role for the agent’s first-personal normative outlook. As a result, they cannot make sense of the fact that rational evaluation is a form of credit or criticism. I conclude that a successful account of correctly responding to reasons must capture the agent’s first-personal normative outlook as an indispensable component of rational evaluability. (shrink)

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) is the canonical expression of the idea of reality as fundamentally rational or intelligible, such that there is always a sufficient ground or explanation for everything about which such questions can be asked. In this essay, I argue that recent attempts to rehabilitate the PSR, despite their many virtues, have not gone far enough in emphasizing the centrality of this principle within all areas of philosophy - both theoretical and practical. Thus, I hope to (...) show that to fully appreciate the significance of the PSR, we need to attend to the role it plays in reasoning of both a theoretical and a practical sort. As we will see, this point is especially important from a Kantian perspective, where it is practical, and not theoretical reason that is the home of our deepest and most substantive commitment to a version of the PSR. Thus, for a Kantian, to understand the nature of our commitment to the PSR, we need to consider this question first and foremost from a practical perspective - or perhaps ultimately from a point of view that somehow transcends the practical-theoretical distinction itself. (shrink)

Subjects experiencing thought insertion disown thoughts they are introspectively aware of. According to what I call “the rationality hypothesis”, thought-insertion reports are not merely intelligible, but also express, or potentially express, fully rational judgments in the light of highly disruptive experience. I argue that the hypothesis is ethically and theoretically motivated, and provides two insights into the philosophical significance of reports by subjects with schizophrenia. First, the reports can be seen as evidence that rational judgments of ownership of a thought (...) prioritize agency awareness over introspective awareness of it. This point fits with an integrative account of thought insertion at the personal and mechanistic levels. Second, rational and competent uses of the first person purely based on introspection do not necessarily involve a full-fledged first-person perspective over one’s thoughts. This suggests that agency awareness, and not introspection as such, is primarily involved in determining the reference of the first person featuring in the judgments. (shrink)

In what follows, I argue that, given a Kantian conception of reason as a capacity, possession of that capacity entails possession of an implicit understanding of what understanding or intelligibility itself is. In particular, I show that this follows from Kant’s conception of reason as the power or capacity for understanding or comprehension (Begreifen), together with several basic Kantian commitments about the nature of rational capacities. Through this argument, I hope to show that the core of the Kantian conception of (...) reason is an (implicit) understanding of intelligibility itself. This represents a first step towards a Kantian defense of the rationalist idea that the essence of reason consists precisely in the capacity to understand intelligibility. (shrink)

Greaves and Wallace argue that conditionalization maximizes expected accuracy and so is a rational requirement, but their argument presupposes a particular picture of the bridge between rationality and accuracy: the best-plan-to-follow picture. And theorists such as Schoenfield and Steel argue that it is possible to motivate an alternative picture—the best-plan-to-make picture—that does not vindicate conditionalization. I show that these theorists are mistaken: it turns out that if an update procedure maximizes expected accuracy on the best-plan-to-follow picture, it is guaranteed to (...) maximize expected accuracy on the best-plan-to-make picture as well, in which case moving from the former to the latter cannot help us avoid the conclusion that conditionalization is a rational requirement. If there is a problem with Greaves and Wallace’s argument, it must lie elsewhere. (shrink)

There are scenarios in which letting one’s own views on the question whether p direct one’s inquiry into that question brings about individual and collective epistemic benefits. However, these scenarios are also such that one’s evidence doesn’t support believing one’s own views. So, how to vindicate the epistemic benefits of directing one’s inquiry in such an asymmetric way, without asking one to hold a seemingly irrational doxastic attitude? To answer this question, the paper understands asymmetric inquiry direction in terms of (...) having one’s inquiry be guided by a doxastic attitude, which I call hypothesis, that’s governed by the following norm: One’s hypothesis that p is rational just in case it is a manifestation of the best feasible way to form a doxastic attitude regarding p that promotes the best feasible ways to advance towards settling the question of p’s (or of any other suitably related proposition’s) truth-value. (shrink)

Jane Friedman claims that when we inquire, there is a tension between the instrumental normativity of our inquiries and some basic epistemic norms: The former forbids what the latter permit. Moreover, she argues that since the instrumental normativity of inquiry is epistemic, the previous tension shows that our current conception of epistemic normativity is incoherent and needs to be revised. To solve the problem, she suggests that all our epistemic norms should be considered “zetetic”, namely, norms of inquiry. In this (...) paper, I will argue that the instrumental normativity of inquiry Friedman depicts is inaccurate. I will propose the following alternative picture: All our reasons to inquire and take means to answer our questions are instrumental and can be derivative from the epistemic, the practical, or both. However, developing this alternative view, I will argue that our duties to inquire and take means to answer our questions are just practical in nature. Based on this, I will show that the tension between the epistemic and the zetetic Friedman depicts is just a conflict between the practical and the epistemic: A conflict that does not show per se that the current conception of epistemic normativity is incoherent and needs to be revised. (shrink)

Epistemologists have recently proposed a number of norms governing rational inquiry. My aim in this paper is to unify and explain recently proposed norms of inquiry by developing a general account of the conditions under which inquiries are rational, analogous to theories such as evidentialism and reliabilism for rational belief. I begin with a reason-responsiveness conception of rationality as responding correctly to possessed normative reasons. I extend this account with a series of claims about the normative reasons for inquiry that (...) we possess. I apply the account to shed light on two classes of norms that have featured prominently in recent discussions: norms of clutter avoidance forbidding agents from engaging in trivial inquiries, and norms of logical non-omniscience governing properties such as the deductive closure and consistency of an agent’s belief state. I conclude with a discussion of the sense in which norms of inquiry should be regarded as epistemic norms. (shrink)

Evidentialism as an account of theoretical rationality is a popular and well-defended position. However, recently, it's been argued that misleading higher-order evidence (HOE) – that is, evidence about one's evidence or about one's cognitive functioning – poses a problem for evidentialism. Roughly, the problem is that, in certain cases of misleading HOE, it appears evidentialism entails that it is rational to adopt a belief in an akratic conjunction – a proposition of the form “p, but my evidence doesn't support p” (...) – despite it being the case that believing an akratic conjunction appears to be clearly irrational. In this paper, I diffuse the problem for evidentialism using the distinction between propositional and doxastic rationality. I argue that, although it can be propositionally rational to believe an akratic conjunction (according to evidentialism), one cannot inferentially base an akratic belief in one's evidence, and, thus, one cannot doxastically rationally possess an akratic belief. In addition, I address the worry that my solution to the puzzle commits evidentialists to the possibility of epistemic circumstances in which a proposition, p, is propositionally rational to believe (namely, an akratic conjunction), yet one cannot, in principle, (doxastically) rationally believe p. As I demonstrate, cases of misleading HOE are not the only types of cases that force evidentialists to accept that propositional rationality does not entail the possibility of doxastic rationality. There are no new problems raised by misleading HOE that weren't already present in cases involving purely first-order evidence. (shrink)

How should we understand the notion of sufficient evidence? How should we deal with the worry that any attempt to use a threshold of support to characterise this notion would be arbitrary? In this paper, I argue that the most familiar way of understanding a threshold is unworkable but also argue that it would be misguided to do away with a threshold-centred account. I argue that we should approach sufficiency in the theoretical realm much in the way that we would (...) in the practical realm where we could, if we wished, say that the evidence for choosing some option is sufficient when given this information this option is no less choiceworthy than its alternatives. Applied to belief, the idea would be that the evidence is sufficient when the expected epistemic desirability of belief is not less than that of suspension. Whilst we might have to acknowledge that the precise weights of reasons that bear on whether to believe are unknowable (making the threshold unknowable), the mechanism that determines a threshold is known and clearly non-arbitrary. The paper concludes with some reflections on why this comparativist approach has been overlooked by epistemologists and reflections on the normative significance of naked statistical evidence. Contrary to an increasingly popular view, I think that naked statistical evidence can both confer justification upon a belief and defeat the justification a belief has, but only if it's evidence _of_ the properties that make belief desirable or undesirable. Whilst naked statistical evidence of truth will not make it rational to believe, this is not because naked statistical evidence is normatively irrelevant but because it is evidence that indicates that only one aspect of desirable belief might be present. Any evidence that warrants a high degree of confidence that a belief is knowledge will make it rational to believe and this includes naked statistical evidence of the properties that turn a belief into knowledge. I also argue that it is an objection to nearly every extant theory of justification that they recognise the factors that determine the threshold I discuss in this paper since these theories invariably treat the threshold as normatively irrelevant. Bad on them. The real threshold problem is not (contrary to prevailing opinion) the problem of explaining how it might be non-arbitrary (that's easily solved), but rather the problem of explaining why a rational thinker should prefer belief to suspension when belief does not cross the threshold or suspension to belief when belief does cross the threshold. This is not a problem for my preferred theory of rational belief or the Lockean view, but it is a problem for virtually every other theory of rational belief on the market. (shrink)

Recent epistemological literature features compelling and novel arguments for thinking that an agent can rationally believe each member of a set of propositions while knowing that one of the members is false. Perhaps more provocatively, these proponents of "Rational Inconsistency," as it were, claim that it’s also possible to know each true member of the set while knowing that one of the members is false. Call this "Knowledgeable Inconsistency." In this article, I explain why, if Knowledgeable Inconsistency is true, then, (...) on pain of an absurd implication about how confirmation works, we should reject non-skeptical Infallibilism about knowledge. For that same reason, the recent proponents of Rational Inconsistency should also reject non-skeptical Infallibilism. (shrink)

NOTE: This is an early preprint version. The definitive, citable "Version of Record" of this paper has been archived on Zenodo and can be found under the DOI 10.5281/zenodo.15682919. Please use the Zenodo version exclusively for all citations. -/- This paper presents a mathematically formalized model for describing and analyzing worldview dynamics, distinguishing between heuristic and reflective worldviews. It formalizes the psychological mechanisms of authority-based belief and cognitive dissonance, demonstrating how humans evaluate new information through the filter of their existing (...) worldview, with authority, social acceptance, and the avoidance of cognitive dissonance playing central roles. A key contribution is the mathematical operationalization of cognitive dissonance as a measurable quantity D, which emerges from the interplay between consonant and dissonant beliefs in relation to correlation C. By explicitly considering belief relationships, multidimensional evaluation systems, and consistency metrics, implicit heuristic thought processes are transformed into an explicit, traceable form. The paper also introduces the concept of reflective worldview refinement---a process that enables progression from an unreflective, inconsistent worldview to a more differentiated, consistent understanding. The work builds upon the method of reflective empiricism and extends it through a concrete model that makes unconscious distortion mechanisms and subjective filters visible. The model primarily serves for structural clarification rather than quantitative prediction, functioning as a conceptual bridge between subjective experience and scientific analysis. Beyond psychological and epistemological implications, applications in artificial intelligence are discussed, particularly the development of a reflective learning method for Large Language Models. The paper provides a valuable contribution to a deeper understanding of human cognitive processes and demonstrates how the supposed objectivity of science can be transcended through conscious reflection on one's own subjectivity. (shrink)

S is usually assumed to be blameworthy for harmful actions only if S knew or should have known about the harmful consequences of her actions. Since there is usually assumed to be a connection between one’s obligations and one’s capacities, expressed by the slogan that ought implies can, one’s capacities to know have an impact on one’s blameworthiness. In this paper, I will investigate this relationship between blameworthiness and knowledge in reverse order. I will first investigate the meaning of (not) (...) being in a position to know. As I will argue, persons can fail to be in a position to know in two different ways – because they are not in a position to acquire evidence or because they are not in a position to acknowledge existing evidence. I will reflect on different epistemically flawed characters, powerless inquirers, who cannot acquire evidence, psychologically stubborn persons, who fail to believe that p despite acknowledged evidence in favor of p, and misled subjectively rational persons, who form beliefs according their own false beliefs about rationality and evidence. As I will argue, people can be prima facie blamelessly ignorant in multiple ways, and major views on blameworthy ignorance confirm this heterogeneous picture. (shrink)

It may seem that epistemic and practical rationality weigh reasons differently, because ties in practical rationality tend to generate permissions and ties in epistemic rationality tend to generate a requirement to withhold judgment. I argue that epistemic and practical rationality weigh reasons in the same way, but they have different "default biases". Practical rationality is biased toward every option being permissible whereas epistemic rationality is biased toward withholding judgment's being required.

What I call “exogenous” depression differs from “endogenous” depression by being _intelligibly_ related to adverse conditions in the world. Because exogenous depression is caused in this way, any purely intrinsic characterization of it is incomplete. Endogenous depression, by contrast, does not resist intrinsic characterization. Further, in exogenous depression, what we are able to understand by empathetic imagination _goes together_ with well-established causes, so there is no tension between intelligibility and objectivity. This distinction can be drawn in a way which is (...) consistent with much of the science of depression. (shrink)

Zeyad el Nabolsy: Hountondji, while critical of the ethnosciences, namely the study of things like “traditional” mathematical and astronomical knowledge from an anthropological perspective, does defend the importance of studying what he calls “endogenous knowledge”. Can you say something about this? -/- Carmen De Schryver: We should say something about his choice of the term “endogenous” over the term “indigenous”. He really wants to question the idea that, insofar as we are talking about African systems of knowledge, we are talking (...) about “indigeneity” because of the connotations of that term, especially in the anthropological literature that he is responding to, with pre-modernity. The concept of “endogeneity”, by contrast, is really getting at the contrast, not between the indigenous and the modern, but between endogenous and exogenous, where it is a question of where do these systems of knowledge emanate from; are they in the first place of African providence? Are they imported from Europe? That is the key distinction for Hountondji, rather than this tradition-modernity distinction. This idea that something that is contemporaneous with European science is pre-modern is, I think, worth challenging. (shrink)

Why care about ideal epistemic norms? Why not merely care about norms that agents like us can actually meet? In this paper, I make two claims. First, I argue that, if we want robust epistemic norms, we can’t just do idealised epistemology. We need to confirm that the results and observations that are central in idealised epistemology also obtain in other contexts. Second, I argue that, if we really want to capture the fundamental nature of epistemic normativity, we need the (...) sort of frameworks that come from non-ideal epistemology. I develop this argument in response to ideas put forward by Jennifer Carr (2022) surrounding the distinctive properties of epistemic ideals. (shrink)

Explaining how people reason is central to understanding ourselves as human beings. Complex deliberations that take unexpected turns are central to many good detective stories, but they are also ubiquitous in everyday life and academic research. While philosophers have studied both ends of complex deliberations – learning new information and reaching justified conclusions – little has been said about our states of mind when we’re in the middle of thought. Yet, this stage of intellectual limbo is where we often produce (...) genuine insight. Integrating theoretical research in philosophy with empirical results from cognitive science, this project advances a new theory of the transitional stages of complex deliberation. It postulates a new attitude type, transitional attitudes, that we hold towards potential answers to the question at hand while we’re deliberating. Transitional attitudes possess their own rationality conditions that differ from the norms of rationality typically applied to conclusions of reasoning. The resulting abstract framework reveals deep structural similarities among such varied intellectual pursuits as determining the significance of a historical artifact, deciding on a person’s guilt in court, deliberating about a philosophical problem, or searching for a mathematical proof. It can help us make progress on difficult philosophical questions, such as how we should respond to misleading higher-order evidence, how we should formally model logical learning, and how confident we can rationally be in our own philosophical positions. -/- . (shrink)

One influential response to apparent higher-order dilemmas implies that agents can rationally both believe p on the basis of their evidence and simultaneously believe that their evidence does not support believing p. This possibility of rational epistemic akrasia seems to call into question the Enkratic Requirement, which prohibits believing a proposition p according to one’s lower-level evidence, while believing that one’s lower-level evidence does not support believing p. In this chapter, we explore two ways to defend the Enkratic Requirement. First, (...) evidentialists about epistemic justification are committed to holding that an ex post (or doxastically) justified belief, as part and parcel of being ex post justified, is accompanied by a corresponding higher-order belief that the first-order belief is supported by the evidence. In a dilemma case, this higher-order belief comes into direct rational conflict with the subject’s other higher-order belief, that her evidence does not support the belief – so the subject has contradictory beliefs. In this way, the so-called ‘level-splitting’ strategy for the claim that being akratic is not per se irrational is called into question. Our second argument for the Enkratic Requirement presupposes normativism about belief and appeals to the conditions of having epistemically permissible beliefs. We sketch an argument starting from an influential view about the normativity of belief: that irrational beliefs are impermissible beliefs. From this claim, together with some widely held as-sumptions about the notion of rationality, we show that agents who display akratic combi-nations of attitudes hold impermissible beliefs. (shrink)

Our interest in understanding belief stems partly from our being creatures who think. However, the term ‘belief’ is used to refer to many states: from the fully conscious rational state that partly constitutes knowledge to the fanciful states of alarm clocks. Which of the many ‘belief’ states must a theory of belief be answerable to? This is the scope question. I begin my answer with a reply to a recent argument that belief is invariably weak, i.e., that the evidential standards (...) that are required for belief are low. Although one state we refer to using the term ‘belief’ fits this profile, other ‘belief’ states do not. Crucially, when ‘belief’ is heard in a weak sense, it attributes a state that only a rational creature can be in. I will use this observation as a starting point for an argument that the study of (our) belief should not be constrained by the requirement that the illuminated state be held in common with any non‐rational being. This lends support to the Transformative Theory of Rationality, according to which rationality does not merely add powers or complexity to the animal mind, but transforms it into a different kind of mind altogether. (shrink)

Germaine de Staël’s theory of the impassioned nature of human beings, as set out in her work De l’influence des passions sur le bonheur des individus et des nations (1796), provides an insightful account of a sentimentalist theory in which human sensibility and emotionality are understood to be a core part of moral thought. In this work, Staël develops a psychological anthropology and moral theory that presents an interplay between the rational and the sentimental as one of its core aspects. (...) Understanding the impassioned nature of human beings is crucial if—like Staël—one believes that passions are the most important root from which individual and collective happiness sprout. Furthermore, passions are essential for moral judgement: in the complex human psychology, dual negative and positive influences of both reason and the passions influence each other. This interplay functions on a political and public level as well as on a personal and private level. (shrink)

Thinking about misleading higher-order evidence naturally leads to a puzzle about epistemic rationality: If one’s total evidence can be radically misleading regarding itself, then two widely-accepted requirements of rationality come into conflict, suggesting that there are rational dilemmas. This paper focuses on an often misunderstood and underexplored response to this (and similar) puzzles, the so-called conflicting-ideals view. Drawing on work from defeasible logic, I propose understanding this view as a move away from the default meta-epistemological position according to which rationality (...) requirements are strict and governed by a strong, but never explicitly stated logic, toward the more unconventional view, according to which requirements are defeasible and governed by a comparatively weak logic. When understood this way, the response is not committed to dilemmas. (shrink)

This paper critically examines Coliva and Palmira’s characterization of the disagreement between Humean skeptics and hinge epistemologists as a distinctive kind of conceptual disagreement. Humean skepticism requires evidential justification for all rational beliefs, presenting a narrower conception of rationality. This contrasts with constitutivist hinge epistemology, which posits that our unwarranted hinge propositions — the basic certainties which makes the justifications for ordinary empirical propositions possible — are constitutive of the concept of epistemic rationality, thus they are also rationally accepted by (...) us. Coliva and Palmira (2020, 2021) argue that this divergence reflects a conceptual disagreement over the conception of epistemic rationality, implying a dispute about how the concept of epistemic rationality should be understood. Their strategy is two-fold: they first mentioned Stroud’s (2019) categorization of conceptual disagreement, but contended that the disagreement between Humean skeptics and hinge epistemologists represents a novel kind of conceptual disagreement that Stroud’s categorization cannot encompass. They suggest this new framing allows for a rational resolution of the disagreement; second, they argue that the extended conception of rationality is superior because it coherently accounts for the rationality of our epistemic practices. However, I contend that both parts of their two-fold strategy fail. Even if the disagreement is conceptual, it can be understood as a type of disagreement within Stroud’s categorization; therefore, it does not represent a novel type of disagreement. Additionally, I argue that they misinterpret the skeptic’s stance. Skeptics do not assume that our epistemic practices are rational; rather, they doubt the rationality of these practices and the possibility of knowledge. Therefore, for a skeptic, there is no advantage from a conceptual proposal that makes a coherent account of the alleged rationality of our epistemic practices. (shrink)

What should we believe? One plausible view is that we should believe what is true. Another is that we should believe what is rational to believe. I will argue that both these theses can be accounted for once we add an independently motivated contextualism about normative terms. According to contextualism, the content of ‘ought’ depends on two parameters – a goal and a modal base (or set of possible worlds). It follows that there is a sense in which we should (...) believe truths and a sense in which we should believe what is rational to believe. (shrink)

Suspension of judgment is a ubiquitous phenomenon in our lives. It is also relevant for several debates in contemporary epistemology (e.g., evidentialism/pragmatism; peer-disagreement/higher-order evidence; inquiry). The goal of this paper is to arrive at a better understanding of what suspension of judgment is. We first question the popular assumption that we call the Triad view according to which there are three and only three (paradigmatic) doxastic attitudes, namely, belief, disbelief, and suspension of judgment. We elaborate a cumulative argument regarding crucial (...) differences between belief/disbelief and suspension and conclude tentatively that suspension is not a doxastic state. On the constructive side, we defend the positive thesis (with special attention to justification/rationality and reasons for suspension) that suspension is rather an affective phenomenon, viz. a sort of mood. Finally, we consider further consequences of our view for contemporary debates in epistemology, and how it relates to ancient skepticism. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine Pascal's Wager as a decision problem where the uncertainty is massive, that is, as a decision under ignorance. I first present several reasons to support this interpretation. Then, I argue that wagering for God is the optimal act in a broad range of cases, according to two well-known criteria for decision-making: the Minimax Regret rule and the Hurwicz criterion. Given a Pascalian standard matrix, I also show that a tie between wagering for God and wagering (...) against God is only possible under very narrow conditions when applying the Hurwicz criterion. Finally, I discuss three objections to these two versions of the Wager. The most pressing challenge comes from the Many-Gods objection. I conclude that this objection is even more challenging whenever one faces a situation of massive uncertainty about God's existence. I argue that addressing it requires a more detailed examination of the benefits of adopting a religious life compared to those of choosing non-theism, or an additional criterion that can break the tie between these options. (shrink)

In this paper, we address a key question that has been central to discussions on rationality: is the concept of rationality normative or merely descriptive? We present the findings of a corpus-linguistic study revealing that people commonly perceive the concept of rationality as normative.

While research on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has traditionally focused on cognitive and behavioral deficits, there is increasing interest in exploring possible resources associated with the disorder. In this paper, we argue that the attention-patterns associated with ADHD can be understood as expressing an alternative style of inquiry, or “zetetic” style, characterized mainly by a lower barrier for becoming curious and engaging in inquiry, and a weaker disposition to regulate curiosity in response to the cognitive and practical costs associated (...) with inquiry. Exploring this zetetic style from an epistemological perspective, we show that it is often epistemically rational and can be advantageous in important respects. We close by suggesting that the very aspects of the zetetic style that might at times render it disadvantageous from the point of view of individual subjects with ADHD, will often confer epistemic benefits to the social group that the subjects are part of. (shrink)

The Culpable Control Model assumes that causal judgments are irrational: a negative evaluative reaction to an agent would lead individuals to overestimate his causal contribution to a harm. However, the extent to which these judgments deviate from criteria of rationality remains unclear. The two present studies aimed at investigating conditions under which this effect occurs. Participants red a vignette in which the evaluative reaction was operationalized through the agent’s motives (blameworthy, laudable). We also varied the causal link between the agent’s (...) action and the outcome (strong, weak, preempted). In both studies, we found that negative motives influenced causal judgments when a strong action-outcome link could be established. In Study 2, we replicated the effect of motives on causal judgment in the weak link condition. However, participants consistently judged the agent as less causal when the link was weak (vs. strong), regardless of the agent’s motives. These findings show that both the presence and the strength of the actual causal link between the action and the outcome moderate the detrimental effect of negative evaluative reactions on causal judgments. Thus, common sense causal judgments seem to deviate relatively little from the criteria of rationality. (shrink)

A Review of: Joel Z. Leibo et al. A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence. (2024) (in Russian) .

Bohr’s work in quantum mechanics posed a challenge to philosophers of science, who struggled with the question of whether and to what degree his theories and methods could be considered rational. This paper focuses on Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos and Kuhn, all of whom recognized some irrational, dogmatic, paradoxical or even inconsistent features in Bohr’s work. Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos expressed strong criticism of Bohr’s approach to quantum physics, while Kuhn argued that such criticism was unlikely to be fruitful: progress in (...) science is generally not made through philosophical reflection. Feyerabend’s criticism of Bohr gradually weakened, as he gained a more detailed understanding of the development of Bohr’s views on quantum mechanics, and this went together with an increasingly critical view of normative philosophy of science and was instrumental to his conversion to ‘anarchism’. This paper aims to show that quantum mechanics played a central role in their debates and disagreements on the rationality of science and the possibility of a normative philosophy of science. (shrink)

Stewart Cohen’s epistemic responsibility conception of epistemic justification in illustrating the problem of the new evil demon is assessed through some virtue-theoretic attempts, notably by Timothy Williamson and Clayton Littlejohn, whose accounts provide a good departure point to differentiate epistemic blamelessness through epistemic excusability via exercise of epistemic competence with epistemic recklessness. Some failure of epistemic sensitivity is through epistemic recklessness, and its epistemic blameworthiness is understood thus. I shall, having set the stage of epistemic justification in relation to epistemic (...) responsibility, present my theory of epistemic reason, and of reason in general, by describing reason as knowledge of obligation. Having distinguished reasonableness from rationality, I will also present a safety theory of reasonableness, and correspondingly a measure of reasonableness, beyond my knowledge of obligation conception of rationality. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate whether there are any cases in which it is rational for a person to hold inconsistent beliefs and, if there are, just what implications this might have for the theory of epistemic justification. A number of issues will crop up along the way – including the relation between justification and rationality, the nature of defeat, the possibility of epistemic dilemmas, the importance of positive epistemic duties, and the distinction between transitional and terminal attitudes.

In this chapter, I argue that theistic belief is permissive belief. This is not a universal claim about persons or normative domains, but the claim that, for many common bodies of evidence, epistemic rationality is permissive about whether God exists. Marks of a permissive belief are rational disagreement over time, rational disagreement over persons, and powerful evidence on both sides. I argue that theistic belief fits all these criteria. I also show how considerations from divine hiddenness support permissivism about theism. (...) Then, I show how these considerations support intrapersonal permissivism about theistic belief, using Peter Van Inwagen’s (1994) Quam Dialecta as a case study. Finally, I reply to objections. (shrink)

这项工作将探讨集体想象及其与现实和真理的关系的基本问题。首先，我们应该在概念框架中面对这个主题，然后对可证明的行为现实进行相应的事实分析。 我们不仅会采用方法论，还会主要采用分析哲学的原则和主张，这些原则和主张必将在整个研究中得到揭示，并可以通过佩雷斯所描述的特征来识别 ： -/- “Rabossi (1975) 认为，可以通过考虑某些家族相似性来识别分析哲学。他认为分析哲学具有以下家族特征：对科学知识持积极态度；对形而上学持谨慎态度；将哲学视为概念任务，将概念分析视为方法；语言与哲学之间关系密切；注重寻求哲学 问题的论证性答案；寻求概念的清晰度。” -/- 这些核心概念涉及文化、社会、宗教、科学、哲学、道德和政治，它们属于个体和集体存在。 -/- 在本文中，我们不会进行辩论或争论。我们的目的不是系统地方法化、批评或提出证据。 -/- 这项研究基于分析反思。我们将尽可能彻底和深入地进行推测，并表达我们思考的结果。尽管该主题具有多学科性，并且方法论开放，接受所有科学领域的贡献，但这项工作属于心理学和本体论，或者换句话说，社会和本体论心 理学。 指导这种思想的自由主义方法论包容并考虑到与哲学和心理学认识论接近一致的一切。这种方法论不寻求证据，而是寻求任何性质和大小的现有证据之间的相互关系，并推断出真实事物的连贯意义。 许多伟大的思想家从不寻求争论、理论化或系统化，而是通过思考、冥想和谦卑的意识来接近真理。他们将成为我们的榜样和参考。虽然我们无法找到真相，但 我们可以肯定这一点：在很多情况下，我们将接近真相，在任何时候，我们都将远离谎言和不真实。 本文的主要范围是观察人类的一些基本进化属性，如创造力、想象力和联想，如何在智慧迷雾的阴影下成为一种危险的疾病。 .

Both actions and beliefs are subject to normative evaluation as rational or irrational. As such, we might expect there to be some general, unified story about what makes them rational. However, orthodox approaches suggest that the rationality of action is determined by practical considerations, while the rationality of belief is determined by properly epistemic considerations. This apparent disunity leads some, like Rinard (2019), to reject orthodox theories of the rationality of belief in favor of pragmatism. In this paper, I argue (...) we should reject pragmatist approaches to unifying the rationality of action and belief. Instead, I argue, we should embrace a correctness‐based view of rationality, on which rationality is fundamentally about getting things correct as best we can, given our epistemic limitations. On such a view, the facts about rational action and belief are a function of the facts about correct action and belief. I contend that the apparent disunity of orthodox theories is created by the fact that action and belief have different correctness conditions. Nevertheless, on the correctness‐based view, this disunity is merely apparent. This renders pragmatism's revisionary implications for the rationality of belief unnecessary to take on in order unify it with the rationality of action. (shrink)

I develop a broadly reliabilist theory of non‐ideal epistemic rationality and argue that if it is correct we should reject the recently popular idea that the standards of non‐ideal epistemic rationality are mere social conventions.

Initially, you judge that p. You then learn that most experts disagree. All things considered, you believe that the experts are probably right. Still, p continues to seem right to you, in some sense. You don’t yet see what, if anything, is wrong with your original reasoning. In such a case, we’ll say that you are ‘inclined’ toward p. This paper explores various roles that this state of inclination can play, both within epistemology and more broadly. Specifically, it will be (...) argued that: (i) inclinations can promote the accuracy of inquiring groups; (ii) they can support rational participation within philosophy despite pervasive disagreement; (iii) they allow us to make sense of an important way in which two people can continue to disagree even after they ‘conciliate’; (iv) inclinations carry information about individuals’ independent judgments and for this reason must be accounted for when updating on the opinions of others; (v) inclinations are connected to understanding in a way that belief is not; (vi) and awareness of the inclination-belief distinction enables us to respond to a provocative challenge purporting to show that critical thinking, or ‘thinking for oneself’, typically reduces expected accuracy and hence should be discouraged. (shrink)