Wrongful ways to raise the epistemic standard

Episteme (3):1-15 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is concerned with identifying and accounting for cases where the epistemic standard is raised inappropriately. The first section is concerned with identifying a notion of a variable epistemic standard that is neutral regarding a range of theoretical issues. The second section argues that the possibility the epistemic standard could be raised in some epistemic inappropriate way warrants further investigation. The third section outlines and provides a partial explanation of such a case: one in which a climate change denier attempts to raise the epistemic standard in order to shut down inquiry.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,853

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The trouble with having standards.Han Li - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (5):1225-1245.
Epistemic comparative conditionals.Linton Wang - 2008 - Synthese 162 (1):133 - 156.
Lucky Ignorance, Modality and Lack of Knowledge.Oscar A. Piedrahita - 2021 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (3).
Empathetic Understanding and Deliberative Democracy.Michael Hannon - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 101 (3):591-611.
Epistemic Modals and Common Ground.Ezra Cook - 2013 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 56 (2-3):179-209.
Epistemic Modality De Re.Seth Yalcin - 2015 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 2:475-527.
What’s Epistemic About Epistemic Paternalism?Elizabeth Jackson - 2022 - In Jonathan Matheson & Kirk Lougheed (eds.), Epistemic Autonomy. New York: Routledge. pp. 132–150.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-01

Downloads
73 (#225,692)

6 months
16 (#157,055)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jumbly Grindrod
University of Reading

Citations of this work

On Deniability.Alexander Dinges & Julia Zakkou - 2023 - Mind 132 (526):372-401.
What's the Point of Authors?Joshua Habgood-Coote - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and lotteries.John Hawthorne - 2004 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and practical interests.Jason Stanley - 2005 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 39 references / Add more references