In this paper, I present a puzzle about the connection between an agent’s knowledge and her rationality and a way to solve it. The puzzle is that, intuitively, many of us want to accept both that it is rational for an agent to act on what she knows and that it is irrational for an agent to take what she knows for granting in her practical reasoning. These two claims about rationality present us with a puzzle because, holding fixed our (...) interpretation of rationality, we cannot accept them both. According to my view, the most compelling way of solving this puzzle is to distinguish between our primary and dispositional evaluations of actions. By making this distinction, we not only gain a unique perspective on the relationship between knowledge and rationality, we also see how doing what we know is best might still manifest an undesirable habit. (shrink)

Los recientes avances en neurociencia, y en las ciencias de la vida en general, han hecho posible no solo tratar y restaurar las funciones dañadas, sino la posibilidad de algún día mejorar las funciones en la población saludable. Las amplias aplicaciones de la biotecnología y medicación farmacológica se dirigen a los mecanismos próximos que se consideran deficitarios en los pacientes. Recientemente, se ha mostrado como algunas de estas medicaciones pueden afectar comportamientos complejos humanos, como la moral en personas saludables, lo (...) cual abre la puerta para un entendimiento más profundo de la naturaleza humana. ¿Hasta que punto es éticamente permisible alterar la neuroquímica o modular una región cerebral para intervenir en el comportamiento moral?, ¿es intrínsecamente malo la biomejora moral?, ¿cómo podemos conocer los efectos adversos y cómo sopesarlos en un análisis coste/beneficio de una intervención?, ¿la biomejora moral supone una amenaza a la libertad? Considerando dos posturas opuestas, DeGrazia y Harris, sobre los retos éticos de la biomejora moral se sugiere que si los principios tradicionales de la bioética como la seguridad, efectividad y universalidad se cumplen no hay nada malo en la biomejora moral per se y, por consiguiente, es éticamente permisible. (shrink)

Este artigo visa a apresentar, em linhas gerais, o que é a epistemologia da prioridade do conhecimento, quais são suas principais características e o que a distingue das teorias concorrentes. Focalizando essa meta, o autor avalia alguns problemas tanto do ponto de vista de sua posição, quanto do ponto de vista das principais concorrentes e analisa os resultados. Tradução de: Williamson, Timothy. Knowledge First Epistemology. In Sven Bernecker & Duncan Pritchard. The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge, 2011, pp. 208-218.

I show that accepting Moss’s claim that features of a rational agent’s credence function can constitute knowledge, together with the claim that a rational agent should only act on the basis of reasons that he knows, predicts and explains evidential decision theory’s failure to recommend the right choice for the Newcomb problem. The Newcomb problem can be seen, in light of Moss’s suggestion, as a manifestation of a Gettier case in the domain of choice. This serves as strong evidence for (...) both Moss’s claim and the knowledge-based action approach. (shrink)

Recently there has been a surge of interest in the intersection between epistemology and action theory, especially in principles linking rationality in thought and rationality in action. Recently there has also been a surge of interest in the epistemic significance of perceived peer disagreement: what, epistemically speaking, is the rational response in light of disagreement with someone whom one regards as an epistemic peer? The objective of this paper is to explore these two issues—separately, but also in connection with one (...) another. I turn first to the idea that the normative standing of our actions depends on the normative standing of our beliefs. I endorse this idea. More precisely, I endorse a principle according to which sufficiently high credence in success conditions for a given goal-directed action is a necessary condition on rational execution of that action. I then turn to the debate concerning the epistemic significance of perceived peer disagreement. The basic issue is whether such disagreement is always epistemically significant in the sense of serving as a defeater of the initial credences of the disagreeing parties. Conformists argue that this is so while non-conformists deny it. I present a new argument against a brand of non-conformism that I call “strong non-conformism”. The key premise is the principle that sufficiently high credence in success conditions for a given goal-directed action is a necessary condition on rational execution of that action. I argue that, given this principle, strong non-conformism fails to yield the verdict that the epistemic requirement on rational action is violated in a case where, intuitively, it is violated. This is because strong non-conformism has it that disagreement with a perceived peer does not act as a defeater in the relevant case. Conformism fares better. (shrink)

What is the relationship between the epistemic norms of assertion and the epistemic norms of action/practical reasoning? Brown argues that the standards for practical reasoning and assertion are distinct (Brown 2012). In contrast, Montminy argues that practical reasoning and assertion must be governed by the same norm (Montminy 2012). Likewise, McKinnon has articulated an argument for a unified account from cases of isolated second-hand knowledge (McKinnon 2012). To clarify the issue, I articulate a distinction between Equivalence Commonality and Structural Commonality. (...) I then argue against the former by counterexamples that doubly dissociate the standards for assertion and action. Furthermore, I argue that such a double dissociation compromises knowledge accounts of both assertion and action/practical reasoning. To provide a more accurate diagnosis, I consider speech act theory and argue that principled differences between the norms of action and assertion compromise Equivalence Commonality. In contrast, a qualified version of Structural Commonality may be preserved. (shrink)

Earl Conee and Richard Feldman have argued that epistemic support should be understood in terms of explanatory considerations. Very roughly, they hold that one’s evidence supports a given proposition when that proposition is part of the best explanation of one’s evidence. This proposal is attractive, but T. Ryan Byerly has recently argued that it is false. Byerly claims that such explanationist accounts of epistemic support cannot account for the fact that one’s evidence can support propositions about the future. Although Byerly (...) presents an interesting challenge, his argument is problematic and, ultimately, unconvincing. (shrink)

This Introduction to the special issue on “Skepticism and Justification” provides a background to the nine articles collected here and a detailed summary of each, which highlights their interconnections and relevance to the debate at the heart of the issue.