Anti-Exceptionalism about Requirements of Epistemic Rationality

Acta Analytica:1-19 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I argue for the unexceptionality of evidence about what rationality requires. Specifically, I argue that, as for other topics, one’s total evidence can sometimes support false beliefs about this. Despite being prima facie innocuous, a number of philosophers have recently denied this. Some have argued that the facts about what rationality requires are highly dependent on the agent’s situation, and change depending on what that situation is like (Bradley, 2019). Others have argued that a particular subset of normative truths, those concerning what epistemic rationality requires, have the special property of being ‘fixed points’ – it is impossible to have total evidence that supports false belief about them (Smithies, 2012; Titelbaum, 2015). Each of these kinds of exceptionality permit a solution to downstream theoretical problems that arise from the possibility of evidence supporting false belief about requirements of rationality. However, as I argue here, they incur heavy explanatory burdens that we should avoid.
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-09-04
Latest version: 3 (2020-10-07)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
98 ( #41,342 of 2,427,842 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #24,297 of 2,427,842 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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