Completing Epistemic Oughts

Philosophical Forum 45 (2):133-148 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Our intuitions about what a person epistemically ought or ought not believe are sometimes quite clear. Keith DeRose and Richard Feldman have devised examples about which our intuitions are likely to conflict. DeRose argues that the conflict of intuitions arises from ambiguity in the epistemic ought. I argue that it results from incompleteness. The success of the argument depends on rejecting the narrow conception of evidential support according to which a person’s evidence supports some proposition P only if the person apprehends the connection between her evidence and P. I argue that this view is mistaken.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,252

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-07

Downloads
51 (#300,335)

6 months
5 (#565,734)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Scott Stapleford
St. Thomas University

Citations of this work

Evidentialism and Epistemic Duties to Inquire.Emily C. McWilliams - 2023 - Philosophical Quarterly 73 (4):965-982.
Intraspecies impermissivism.Scott Stapleford - 2018 - Episteme 16 (3):340-356.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Ethics of Belief.Richard Feldman - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (3):667-695.
Recent Work on the Basing Relation.Keith Allen Korez - 1997 - American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (2):171 - 191.
Authoritarian Epistemology.Richard Feldman - 1995 - Philosophical Topics 23 (1):147-169.

Add more references