The Search for the Source of Epistemic Good

Knowledge has almost always been treated as good, better than mere true belief, but it is remarkably difficult to explain what it is about knowledge that makes it better. I call this "the value problem." I have previously argued that most forms of reliabilism cannot handle the value problem. In this article I argue that the value problem is more general than a problem for reliabilism, infecting a host of different theories, including some that are internalist. An additional problem is that not all instances of true belief seem to be good on balance, so even if a given instance of knowing p is better than merely truly believing p , not all instances of knowing will be good enough to explain why knowledge has received so much attention in the history of philosophy. The article aims to answer two questions: (1) What makes knowing p better than merely truly believing p ? The answer involves an exploration of the connection between believing and the agency of the knower. Knowing is an act in which the knower gets credit for achieving truth. (2) What makes some instances of knowing good enough to make the investigation of knowledge worthy of so much attention? The answer involves the connection between the good of believing truths of certain kinds and a good life. In the best kinds of knowing, the knower not only gets credit for getting the truth but also gets credit for getting a desirable truth. The kind of value that makes knowledge a fitting object of extensive philosophical inquiry is not independent of moral value and the wider values of a good life.     

The Search for the Source of Epistemic Good

Knowledge has almost always been treated as good, better than mere true belief, but it is remarkably difficult to explain what it is about knowledge that makes it better. I call this "the value problem." I have previously argued that most forms of reliabilism cannot handle the value problem. In this article I argue that the value problem is more general than a problem for reliabilism, infecting a host of different theories, including some that are internalist. An additional problem is that not all instances of true belief seem to be good on balance, so even if a given instance of knowing p is better than merely truly believing p , not all instances of knowing will be good enough to explain why knowledge has received so much attention in the history of philosophy. The article aims to answer two questions: (1) What makes knowing p better than merely truly believing p ? The answer involves an exploration of the connection between believing and the agency of the knower. Knowing is an act in which the knower gets credit for achieving truth. (2) What makes some instances of knowing good enough to make the investigation of knowledge worthy of so much attention? The answer involves the connection between the good of believing truths of certain kinds and a good life. In the best kinds of knowing, the knower not only gets credit for getting the truth but also gets credit for getting a desirable truth. The kind of value that makes knowledge a fitting object of extensive philosophical inquiry is not independent of moral value and the wider values of a good life.     

The Theory of Epistemic Justification and the Theory of Knowledge: A Divorce

Richard Foley has suggested that the search for a good theory of epistemic justification and the analysis of knowledge should be conceived of as two distinct projects. However, he has not offered much support for this claim, beyond highlighting certain salutary consequences it might have. In this paper, I offer some further support for Foley’s claim by offering an argument and a way to conceive the claim in a way that makes it as plausible as its denial, and thus levelling the playing field. The burden of proof then lies with those who seek to deny Foley’s radical suggestion.     

In Defense of Epistemic Arithmetic

This paper presents a defense of Epistemic Arithmetic as used for a formalization of intuitionistic arithmetic and of certain informal mathematical principles. First, objections by Allen Hazen and Craig Smorynski against Epistemic Arithmetic are discussed and found wanting. Second, positive support is given for the research program by showing that Epistemic Arithmetic can give interesting formulations of Church's Thesis. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Role of Freedom in Descartes' Ethics of Belief

This article brings to light the role and importance of Descartes' concept of freedom for his ethics of belief. For Descartes, I argue, correctly assigning epistemic praise/blame means tracking authentic freedoms: ascertaining whether an act of assent is spontaneous or perverse both before and after eliciting the act of will. Authentic spontaneity ensures that the agent receives praise for his epistemic accomplishment, which includes the right results as well as the right order of steps. Authentic perversity leads to the agent being blamed for not accepting the truth while fully aware of the gravity of the gesture.     

The Paradox of Belief Instability and a Revision Theory of Belief

The epistemic paradox of 'belief instability' has recently received notable attention from many philosophers. In this paper I offer a new proposal, which I call a 'revision theory of belief'. This theory is in many respects an application of Gupta's and Belnap's revision theory of truth. They argue that the Liar paradox arises because our notion of truth is circular. I offer a similar proposal for handling the paradox of belief instability. In particular, I argue that our notion involved in the paradox of belief instability is circular, and this circularity of belief is the source of the paradox.     

信念修正的AGM理论

信念修正问题是一个富有活力的,正在发展的研究主题。这个主题包括了一大批背景不同、形态各异的理论。阿尔罗若(C．E．Alchourron)、加德福斯(P．Gardenfors)和梅金森(D．Markinson)共同建立的信念修正理论(简称AGM理论)是其中形成比较早的、影响最大的理论。本文说明信念修正的基本概念,并且对AGM理论进行述评.     

Epistemic Instrumentalism and Reasons for Belief: A Reply to Tom Kelly's "Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique"

Tom Kelly argues that instrumentalist accounts of epistemic rationality fail because what a person has reason to believe does not depend upon the content of his or her goals. However, his argument fails to distinguish questions about what the evidence supports from questions about what a person ought to believe . Once these are distinguished, the instrumentalist can avoid Kelly's objections. The paper concludes by sketching what I take to be the most defensible version of the instrumentalist view.     

Coverage-Reliability, Epistemic Dependence, and the Problem of Rumor-Based Belief

Rumors, for better or worse, are an important element of public discourse. The present paper focuses on rumors as an epistemic phenomenon rather than as a social or political problem. In particular, it investigates the relation between the mode of transmission and the reliability, if any, of rumors as a source of knowledge. It does so by comparing rumor with two forms of epistemic dependence that have recently received attention in the philosophical literature: our dependence on the testimony of others, and our dependence on what has been called the ‘coverage-reliability’ of our social environment (Goldberg 2010). According to the latter, an environment is ‘coverage-reliable’ if, across a wide range of beliefs and given certain conditions, it supports the following conditional: If ~p were true I would have heard about it by now. However, in information-deprived social environments with little coverage-reliability, rumors may transmit information that could not otherwise be had. This suggests that a trade-off exists between levels of trust in the coverage-reliability of official sources and (warranted) trust in rumor as a source of information.     

In Search of Understanding: Re-reading The Theaetetus

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research - The article is an attempt to interpret Plato’s Theaetetus, with a view to show that a crucial distinction between knowledge and...     

In Defense of the Epistemic Imperative

Sample (Philos Sci 82(5):856–866, 2015) argues that scientists ought not to believe that their theories are true because they cannot fulfill the epistemic obligation to take the diachronic perspective on their theories. I reply that Sample’s argument imposes an inordinately heavy epistemic obligation on scientists, and that it spells doom not only for scientific theories but also for observational beliefs and philosophical ideas that Samples endorses. I also delineate what I take to be a reasonable epistemic obligation for scientists. In sum, philosophers ought to impose on scientists only an epistemic standard that they are willing to impose on themselves.