Epistemic duties and failure to understand one’s evidence

Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 16 (1):147-177 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper defends the thesis that our epistemic duty is the duty to proportion our beliefs to the evidence we possess. An inclusive view of evidence possessed is put forward on the grounds that it makes sense of our intuitions about when it is right to say that a person ought to believe some proposition P. A second thesis is that we have no epistemic duty to adopt any particular doxastic attitudes. The apparent tension between the two theses is resolved by applying the concept of duty to belief indirectly.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Completing Epistemic Oughts.Scott Stapleford - 2014 - Philosophical Forum 45 (2):133-148.
Epistemic and Moral Obligation Regarding Believing.Colin Russell Mathers - 1998 - Dissertation, The University of Rochester
Bound by the Evidence.Scott Stapleford & Kevin McCain - 2020 - In Scott Stapleford & Kevin McCain (eds.), Epistemic Duties: New Arguments, New Angles. New York: Routledge. pp. 113–124.
Why There are No Epistemic Duties.Chase B. Wrenn - 2007 - Dialogue: The Canadian Philosophical Review 46 (1):115-136.
Ought to believe vs. ought to reflect.Anthony Robert Booth - 2020 - In Scott Stapleford & Kevin McCain (eds.), Epistemic Duties: New Arguments, New Angles. New York: Routledge.
The duty to believe according to the evidence.Allen Wood - 2008 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 63 (1-3):7-24.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-09-27

Downloads
1,647 (#8,810)

6 months
98 (#59,083)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Scott Stapleford
St. Thomas University