, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 1721–1733 | Cite as

Epistemic Uniqueness and the Practical Relevance of Epistemic Practices

  • Marc-Kevin DaoustEmail author


By taking the practical relevance of coordinated epistemic standards into account, Dogramaci and Horowitz (Philosophical Issues, 26(1), 130–147, 2016) as well as Greco and Hedden (The Journal of Philosophy, 113(8), 365–395, 2016) offer a new perspective on epistemic permissiveness. However, in its current state, their argument appears to be inconclusive. I will offer two reasons why this argument does not support interpersonal uniqueness in general. First, such an argument leaves open the possibility that distinct closed societies come to incompatible epistemic standards. Second, some epistemic practices like the promotion of methodological heterogeneity in epistemic communities could be best explained by epistemic permissiveness.


Rationality Uniqueness Epistemic peer Epistemic labour 



This research was financed by the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur la Normativité (GRIN) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (#767-2016-1771). Thanks to Daniel Laurier, Simon-Pierre Chevarie-Cossette, Andrew Reisner, Xander Selene and two anonymous referees for their invaluable comments and suggestions.


  1. Cohen, S. (2013). A defense of the (almost) equal weight view. In J. Lackey & D. Christensen (Eds.), The epistemology of disagreement: New essays (pp. 98–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Côté-Bouchard, C. (2015). Epistemic instrumentalism and the too few reasons objection. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 23(3), 337–355. doi: 10.1080/09672559.2015.1042007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Côté-Bouchard, C. (2016). Can the aim of belief ground epistemic normativity? Philosophical Studies, 173(12), 3181–3198. doi: 10.1007/s11098-016-0657-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahlback, M. L. (Forthcoming). Infinitely Permissive. Erkenntnis. Google Scholar
  5. Dogramaci, S., & Horowitz, S. (2016). An argument for uniqueness about evidential support. Philosophical Issues, 26(1), 130–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, A. I. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Greco, D., & Hedden, B. (2016). Uniqueness and Metaepistemology. The Journal of Philosophy, 113(8), 365–395. doi: 10.5840/jphil2016113825.
  8. Grimm, S. R. (2009). Epistemic normativity. In In Epistemic Value, edited by Adrian haddock, Allan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard, 2009:243–64. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Horowitz, S. (2014). Immoderately rational. Philosophical Studies, 167(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kopec, M. (2015). A counterexample to the uniqueness thesis. Philosophia, 43(2), 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kopec, M., & Titelbaum, M. G. (2016). The uniqueness thesis. Philosophy Compass, 11(4), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Longino, H. (2016). The social dimensions of scientific knowledge. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Ed.) Zalta E. N., spring 2016.
  13. Matheson, J. (2011). The case for rational uniqueness. Logos & Episteme, 2(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meacham, C. J. G. (2014). Impermissive Bayesianism. Erkenntnis, 79(6), 1185–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Raleigh, Thomas. 2015. “An Argument for Permissivism from Safespots.” In Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, edited by Wiebe van der Hoek, Wesley H. Holliday, and Wen-fang Wang, 308–15. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 9394. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-48561-3_25.
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sharadin, N. (2015). A partial defense of Permissivism. Ratio. doi: 10.1111/rati.12115/full.
  18. Titelbaum, Michael G., and Matthew Kopec. (forthcoming). When rational Reasoners reason differently. In Reasoning: Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking, (Ed.), Balcerak Jackson M., Balcerak Jackson B. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Titelbaum, M. & Kopec M. (m.s). Plausible Permissivism. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  20. White, R. (2005). Epistemic permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White, R. (2014). Evidence cannot be permissive. In Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, (Eds.), Steup M, Turri J, Sosa E (pp. 312–23). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations