| Abstract: | A prominent objection to the so‐called ‘knowledge norm of belief’ is that it is too demanding or too strong. I argue that a prominent way of motivating the objection leads to an impasse in the epistemic norms debate. A way out of the impasse becomes available when we take a closer look at some distinctions in the theory of responsibility. There are at least three relevant notions of responsibility. I argue that a weaker notion of responsibility – attributability – should be used to motivate the objection. This opens up space to move beyond the impasse. |
