Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T05:39:09.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISAGREEMENT, DRUGS, ETC.: FROM ACCURACY TO AKRASIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

David Christensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We often get evidence concerning the reliability of our own thinking about some particular matter. This “higher-order evidence” can come from the disagreement of others, or from information about our being subject to the effects of drugs, fatigue, emotional ties, implicit biases, etc. This paper examines some pros and cons of two fairly general models for accommodating higher-order evidence. The one that currently seems most promising also turns out to have the consequence that epistemic akrasia should occur more frequently than is sometimes supposed. But it also helps us see why this might not be a bad thing.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: 2015 Episteme Conference , December 2016 , pp. 397 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, J. E. 2002. Belief's Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Z. ms. ‘Disagreement and Belief Dependence: Showing When and How the Numbers Count.’Google Scholar
Berger, D. ms. Rational and Reasonable Beliefs – Two Dimensions of Epistemic Criticizability and an Alternative to Conciliationism. Senior Honors Thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007a. ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007b. ‘Does Murphy's Law Apply in Epistemology? Self-Doubt and Rational Ideals.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2: 3–31.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2010. ‘Higher-Order Evidence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 185–215.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2011. ‘Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism.’ Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(6): 1–22.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2016. ‘Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity.’ Noûs, 50: 584–603.Google Scholar
Coates, A. 2012. ‘Rational Epistemic Akrasia.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 113–24.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 2013. ‘A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 98–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs, 41: 478–502.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2013. ‘The Puzzle of the Unmarked Clock and the New Rational Reflection Principle.’ Philosophical Studies, 164: 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. 2010. ‘Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement.’ Mind, 119: 953–97.Google Scholar
Greco, D. 2014. ‘A Puzzle about Epistemic Akrasia.’ Philosophical Studies, 167: 201–19.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. 2014. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ Noûs, 48: 718–44.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. ms. ‘Predictably Misleading Evidence.’Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2005. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1: 167–96.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. ‘Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 111–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2013. ‘Disagreement and the Burdens of Judgment.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 31–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2010. ‘Belief in the Face of Controversy.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 29–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010. ‘A Justificationist View of Disagreement's Epistemic Significance.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 298–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2013. ‘Disagreement and Belief Dependence: Why Numbers Matter.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 243–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014. ‘Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88: 314–45.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2015. ‘New Rational Reflection and Internalism about Rationality.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 145–71.Google Scholar
Leydon-Hardy, L. 2016. ‘Comments for David Christensen.’ Episteme. doi: 10.1017/epi.2016.21.Google Scholar
Schechter, J. 2013. ‘Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure.’ Philosophical Studies, 163: 428–52.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2014. ‘Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism is True and What it Tells Us About Irrelevant Influences on Belief.’ Noûs, 48: 193–218.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2015a. ‘A Dilemma for Calibrationism.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91: 425–55.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2015b. ‘Bridging Rationality and Accuracy.’ Journal of Philosophy, 112: 633–57.Google Scholar
Sliwa, P. and Horowitz, S. 2015. ‘Respecting all the evidence.’ Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-015-0446-9.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. 2015. ‘Rationality's Fixed Point (Or: In Defense of Right Reason).’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 253–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherson, B. ms. ‘Do Judgments Screen Evidence?’Google Scholar
White, R. 2009. ‘On Treating Oneself and Others as Thermometers.’ Episteme, 6: 233–50.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2011. ‘Improbable Knowing.’ In Dougherty, T. (ed.), Evidentialism and its Discontents, pp. 147–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2014. ‘Very Improbable Knowing.’ Erkenntnis, 79: 971–99.Google Scholar