Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 5, pp 1225–1245 | Cite as

The trouble with having standards

Article
  • 319 Downloads

Abstract

The uniqueness thesis states that for any body of evidence and any proposition, there is at most one rational doxastic attitude that an epistemic agent can take toward that proposition. Permissivism is the denial of uniqueness. Perhaps the most popular form of permissivism is what I call the Epistemic Standard View (ESV), since it relies on the concept of epistemic standards. Roughly speaking, epistemic standards encode particular ways of responding to any possible body of evidence. Since different epistemic standards may rationalize different doxastic states on the same body of evidence, this view gives us a form of permissivism if different agents can have different epistemic standards. Defenders of the ESV, however, have not paid sufficient attention to what it means to have a particular epistemic standard. I argue that any theory of epistemic standard possession must satisfy two criteria to adequately address the broader needs of the ESV. The first criterion is the normative criterion: a theory of standard-possession should explain why agents are rationally required to form beliefs in accordance with their own (rational) epistemic standard, rather than any other (rational) standard. The second criterion is the applicability criterion: a theory of standard-possession should rule that agents have the epistemic standards we intuitively think they have. I then argue that no extant theories of standard-possession can satisfy both these criteria. I conclude by diagnosing why these criteria are so hard to jointly satisfy. Defenders of the ESV are thus left with a serious obstacle to forming a complete and plausible version of their view.

Keywords

Epistemology Rationality Justification Permissivism Uniqueness Disagreement Epistemic standards Bayesianism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited tremendously from discussions and comments from many people, including an anonymous reviewer at Philosophical Studies, Christopher Meacham, Adam Pautz, Bradford Saad, Joshua Schechter, and participants of the 2016 Dissertation Workshop at Brown University. More specifically, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for pushing me to strenghen my arguments about idealized disposotions in the beginning of Sect. 6.2, and Christopher Meacham for a discussion that resulted in Sect. 7 (and the analogy to decision theory in particular). Finally, I would like to give a Special thanks to David Christensen.

References

  1. Ballantyne, N., & Coffman, E. J. (2011). Uniqueness, Evidence, and Rationality. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(18), 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Brueckner, A., & Bundy, A. (2012). On “epistemic permissiveness”. Synthese, 188(2), 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen, D. (2016). Conciliation, uniqueness and rational toxicity. Noûs, 50(3), 584–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douven, I. (2009). Uniqueness revisited. American Philosophical Quarterly, 46(4), 347–361.Google Scholar
  6. Elga, A. (n.d.). Lucky to be rational. https://www.princeton.edu/~adame/papers/bellingham-lucky.pdf.
  7. Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable religious disagreements. In L. Antony (Ed.), Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on atheism and the secular (pp. 194–214). New York, NY: OUP.Google Scholar
  8. Foley, R. (1987). The theory of epistemic rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horowitz, S. (2014). Immoderately rational. Philosophical Studies, 167(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelly, T. (2013). Evidence can be permissive. In M. Steup, J. Turri, & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (p. 298). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1971). Immodest inductive methods. Philosophy of Science, 38(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(December), 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meacham, C. J. G. (2013). Impermissive Bayesianism. Erkenntnis, S6, 1–33.Google Scholar
  15. Moss, S. (2011). Scoring rules and epistemic compromise. Mind, 120(480), 1053–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Podgorski, A. (2016). Dynamic permissivism. Philosophical Studies, 173(7), 1923–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramsey, F. P. (2010). Truth and probability. In A. Eagle (Ed.), Philosophy of probability: Contemporary readings (pp. 52–94). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Rosen, G. (2001). Nominalism, naturalism, epistemic relativism. Noûs, 35(s15), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schoenfield, M. (2013). Permission to believe: Why permissivism is true and what it tells us about irrelevant influences on belief. Noûs, 47(1), 193–218.Google Scholar
  20. Titelbaum, M. G., & Kopec, M. (n.d.). Plausible permissivism. https://philpapers.org/archive/TITPP-2.pdf.
  21. Weintraub, R. (2013). Can steadfast peer disagreement be rational? Philosophical Quarterly, 63(253), 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. White, R. (2005). Epistemic permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. White, R. (2013). Evidence cannot be permissive. In M. Steup & J. Turri (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (p. 312). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations