An Epistemic Modal Norm of Practical Reasoning

Synthese:1-22 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
When are you in a position to rely on p in practical reasoning? Existing accounts say that you must know that p, or be in a position to know that p, or be justified in believing that p, or be in a position to justifiably believe it, and so on. This paper argues that all of these proposals face important problems, which I call the Problems of Negative Bootstrapping and of Level Confusions. I offer a diagnosis of these problems, and I argue that an adequate epistemic norm must be transparent in the following sense: According to the correct epistemic norm, a consideration counts in favor of (or against) relying on p in practical reasoning iff, and to the extent that, this consideration also counts in favor of (or against) p being true. I introduce a candidate epistemic norm that satisfies this condition. According to this norm, one should rely on p in practical reasoning only if it must be that p. If we adopt a non-factualist account of “must”, this amounts to a novel and attractive proposal, a proposal that satisfies the transparency condition.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HENAEM-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-02-09
View other versions
Added to PP index
2021-02-09

Total views
157 ( #34,807 of 2,445,944 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
68 ( #9,336 of 2,445,944 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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