Higher-Order Uncertainty

In Mattias Skipper & Asbjørn Steglich Petersen (eds.), Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
You have higher-order uncertainty iff you are uncertain of what opinions you should have. I defend three claims about it. First, the higher-order evidence debate can be helpfully reframed in terms of higher-order uncertainty. The central question becomes how your first- and higher-order opinions should relate—a precise question that can be embedded within a general, tractable framework. Second, this question is nontrivial. Rational higher-order uncertainty is pervasive, and lies at the foundations of the epistemology of disagreement. Third, the answer is not obvious. The Enkratic Intuition---that your first-order opinions must “line up” with your higher-order opinions---is incorrect; epistemic akrasia can be rational. If all this is right, then it leaves us without answers---but with a clear picture of the question, and a fruitful strategy for pursuing it.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2018-10-04
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
546 ( #11,927 of 65,695 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
105 ( #6,086 of 65,695 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.