Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:08:27.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EPISTEMIC AKRASIA AND EPISTEMIC REASONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2018

Marc-Kevin Daoust
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It seems that epistemically rational agents should avoid incoherent combinations of beliefs and should respond correctly to their epistemic reasons. However, some situations seem to indicate that such requirements cannot be simultaneously satisfied. In such contexts, assuming that there is no unsolvable dilemma of epistemic rationality, either (i) it could be rational that one's higher-order attitudes do not align with one's first-order attitudes or (ii) requirements such as responding correctly to epistemic reasons that agents have are not genuine rationality requirements. This result doesn't square well with plausible theoretical assumptions concerning epistemic rationality. So, how do we solve this puzzle? In this paper, I will suggest that an agent can always reason from infallible higher-order reasons. This provides a partial solution to the above puzzle.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 282 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Alexander, D. J. 2013. ‘The Problem of Respecting Higher-Order Doubt.’ Philosopher's Imprint, 13: 1–12.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. and Peijnenburg, J. 2006. ‘Probability without Certainty: Foundationalism and the Lewis–Reichenbach Debate.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(3): 442–53.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. and Peijnenburg, J. 2009. ‘Justification by an Infinity of Conditional Probabilities.’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 50(2): 183–93. doi: 10.1215/00294527-2009-005.Google Scholar
Bélanger, M. 2011. Existe-t-Il Des Dilemmes Moraux Insolubles? Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2005. ‘Does Rationality Give Us Reasons?’ Philosophical Issues, 15(1): 321–37.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2007. ‘Does Rationality Consist in Responding Correctly to Reasons?’ Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4(3): 349–74.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2013. Rationality through Reasoning. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chang, R. (ed.) 1997. Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, R. 2001. ‘Against Constitutive Incommensurability or Buying and Selling Friends.’ Philosophical Issues, 11(1): 33–60.Google Scholar
Chislenko, E. 2014. ‘Moore's Paradox and Akratic Belief.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12127.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 1992. ‘Confirmational Holism and Bayesian Epistemology.’ Philosophy of Science, 59(4): 540–57.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2009. ‘Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.’ Philosophy Compass, 4(5): 756–67.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2010. ‘Higher-Order Evidence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(1): 185–215.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2014. ‘Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity.’ Noûs. doi: 10.1111/nous.12077.Google Scholar
Clarke, R. 2013. ‘Belief Is Credence One (in Context).’ Philosopher's Imprint, 13(11): 1–18.Google Scholar
Coates, A. 2012. ‘Rational Epistemic Akrasia.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(2): 113–24.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 2010. ‘Rational Disagreement Defended.’ In Warfield, T. and Feldman, R. (eds) Disagreement, pp. 69–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1982. ‘Paradoxes of Irrationality.’ In Wollheim, R. and Hopkins, J. (eds), Philosophical Essays on Freud, pp. 289–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demey, L. 2013. ‘Contemporary Epistemic Logic and the Lockean Thesis.’ Foundations of Science, 18(4): 599–610.Google Scholar
Dogramaci, S. and Horowitz, S. 2016. ‘An Argument for Uniqueness About Evidential Support.’ Philosophical Issues, 26(1): 130–47.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. and Prade, H. 2009. ‘Accepted Beliefs, Revision and Bipolarity in the Possibilistic Framework.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 161–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. and Fitelson, B. 2015. ‘Accuracy, Coherence, and Evidence.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 61–96.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2013. ‘The Puzzle of the Unmarked Clock and the New Rational Reflection Principle.’ Philosophical Studies, 164(1): 127–39. doi: 10.1007/s11098-013-0091-0.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2005. ‘Respecting the Evidence.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1): 95–119.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 2009. ‘Beliefs, Degrees of Belief, and the Lockean Thesis.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 37–47. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2013. The Norm of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, D. 2014. ‘A Puzzle about Epistemic Akrasia.’ Philosophical Studies, 167(2): 201–19.Google Scholar
Hinchman, E. S. 2013. ‘Rational Requirements and ‘Rational’ Akrasia.’ Philosophical Studies, 166(3): 529–52.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. 2014a. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ Noûs, 48(4): 718–44.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. 2014b. ‘Immoderately Rational.’ Philosophical Studies, 167(1): 41–56.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. 2007. ‘Moore's Paradox and the Norm of Belief.’ In Nucceteli, S. and Seays, G. (eds), Themes from GE Moore, 142–157. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2005. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.’ In Gendler, T. Szabó and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1, pp. 167–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2014. ‘Evidence Can Be Permissive.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 298–312. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2007. ‘How Does Coherence Matter?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 107: 229–63.Google Scholar
Kroedel, T. 2011. ‘The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility.’ Analysis, 72(1): 57–60.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014. ‘Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88(2): 314–45.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2015. ‘New Rational Reflection and Internalism about Rationality.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 145–71.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. Forthcoming. ‘Enkrasia or Evidentialism? Learning to Love Mismatch.’ Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. 2014. ‘The Stability Theory of Belief.’ Philosophical Review, 123(2): 131–71.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. 2012. Justification and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. 2015. ‘Stop Making Sense? On a Puzzle about Rationality.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12271.Google Scholar
Mele, A. 1988. Irrationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moretti, L. and Piazza, T. 2013. ‘Transmission of Justification and Warrant.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transmission-justification-warrant/.Google Scholar
Pears, D. F. 1984. Motivated Irrationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. 2013. ‘Problems for Credulism.’ In Tucker, C. (ed.), Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism, pp. 89–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reisner, A. 2013. ‘Is the Enkratic Principle a Requirement of Rationality?’ Organon F, 20(4): 437–63.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, B. 2011. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ International Journal for the Study of Skepticism, 1(1): 18–25.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2014. ‘Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism Is True and What It Tells Us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief.’ Noûs, 48(2): 193–218.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 1996. ‘Moral Dilemmas and Rights.’ In Mason, H. E. (ed.), Moral Dilemmas and Moral Theory, pp. 48–51. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. 2012. ‘Moore's Paradox and the Accessibility of Justification.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2): 273–300.Google Scholar
Spohn, W. 2009. ‘A Survey of Ranking Theory.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 185–228. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, S. 2008. ‘Reason and the Grain of Belief.’ Noûs, 42(1): 139–65.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. 2015. ‘Rationality's Fixed Point (or: In Defense of Right Reason).’ In Gendler, T. Szabó and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 5, pp. 253–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. 2015. ‘Updating, Undermining, and Independence.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 121–59.Google Scholar
White, R. 2014. ‘Evidence Cannot Be Permissive.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 312–23. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A. O. 1965. ‘Ethical Consistency.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 35: 103–24.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. 2015. ‘The Conflict of Evidence and Coherence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12246.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. 2016. ‘Moral Reasons, Epistemic Reasons and Rationality.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 66(263): 341–61.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. Forthcoming. ‘Isolating Correct Reasoning.’ In Jackson, M. Balcerak and Jackson, B. Balcerak (eds), Reasoning: New Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zheng, Y. 2001. ‘Akrasia, Picoeconomics, and a Rational Reconstruction of Judgment Formation in Dynamic Choice.’ Philosophical Studies, 104(3): 227–51.Google Scholar