A Puzzle About Knowledge, Blame, and Coherence

Abstract

Many philosophers have offered arguments in favor of the following three theses: (i) A is epistemically permitted (or required) to believe P only if A is in a position to know that P, (ii) incoherent agents fail to satisfy the aforementioned knowledge norm of belief, and (iii) A’s apparent reasons are relevant to determining what A is blameworthy for believing. In this paper, I argue that the above three theses are jointly inconsistent. The main upshot of the paper is this: even if the knowledge norm of belief is correct, it cannot explain some deontic requirements governing belief.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Bondy (2018), Grimm (2009), and Weiner (2014) on epistemic normativity. See Williamson (2002, 255–56; forthcoming) on the knowledge norm of belief. See also Littlejohn (2012) and Sutton (2005). I here take the knowledge norm endorsed by Williamson and others to be a deontic (or prescriptive) norm. See Simion et al. (2016) on knowledge as the evaluative norm of belief.

  2. 2.

    For instance, Kiesewetter (2017) and Lord (2014, 2017, 2018) argue that various requirements of coherence can be explained in terms of reasons-responsiveness. In other words, some types of incoherence can be explained in terms of a failure to respond correctly to reasons one has. Williamson (forthcoming) suggests that all the norms governing belief are somehow related to (or explained by) a norm of truth.

  3. 3.

    See Littlejohn (2012) and Lord (2017) on this concern.

  4. 4.

    See Littlejohn (2013) and Mitova (2017) on the factivity of epistemic reasons. In this paper, I assume that epistemic reasons are facts. But as I will explain in Section 1, apparent reasons can be non-factive.

  5. 5.

    As I indicate in Sections 2 and 3, some philosophers argue that there can be cases of permissible incoherence. I will come back to this possibility in the next sections.

  6. 6.

    See notably Parfit (2011, 34, 111) or Conee and Feldman (2004). Such an account is sometimes understood as a type of internal coherence between (i) a priori knowledge, experiences, perceptions, seemings, memories or intuitions, and (ii) beliefs or credences. See Turri (2009) or Wedgwood (2017, sec. 0.5).

  7. 7.

    The distinction between permission and excuse is common. Scanlon (2009, chap. 4) argues that good intentions or abnormal conditions such as being under great stress are relevant to determining whether one is blameworthy for believing, but such factors have no impact on what one ought to believe. He specifies that blame can play an interpersonal role, in the sense that it can explain why agents sometimes refuse to “enter into other specific relations that involve trust and reliance” (Scanlon 2009, 143). Littlejohn argues that an agent can “be fully reasonable and responsible while failing to do all that the reasons required” (Littlejohn 2011, 115). Boult (2017a, 2017b) argues that the connection between obligations and blame is incompatible with our epistemic practices. If obligations and blame were closely connected, we would never be excused for failing to satisfy our obligations. However, as a matter of a social fact, we frequently excuse people for having violated their obligations. See also Williamson (forthcoming), Lord (2017, 28), Madison (2017), and Schechter (2017, secs. 5–6; forthcoming) for discussion.

  8. 8.

    Or, at least, if there are norms entailing that agents ought to avoid having incoherent combinations of beliefs. Other norms could explain why agents ought to avoid having incoherent combinations of beliefs.

  9. 9.

    I compare these types of incoherentism in Daoust (2018, sec. 2).

  10. 10.

    I am here glossing over some subtleties. Other conditions could be added: for instance, Debby is not forming and revising her beliefs under special conditions such as extreme stress. See Scanlon (2009, chap. 4) on blameworthiness and extreme stress. I here assume that full responsibility excludes extreme stress.

  11. 11.

    As in Wrenn (2007) or Nelson (2010).

  12. 12.

    See Kroedel (2011) for another explanation of why we have no positive epistemic duties. See Kiesewetter (2018) for a reply to Kroedel’s argument.

  13. 13.

    See Harman (1986, chap. 6).

  14. 14.

    See Nozick (1993, chap. 2).

  15. 15.

    See Kiesewetter (2017, chap. 7.8; 2018).

  16. 16.

    See Demey (2013), Easwaran (2015), Easwaran and Fitelson (2015), Foley (2009), Kroedel (2011) or Sturgeon (2008). See also Schechter (2013) on the failure of Closure.

  17. 17.

    See Coates (2012) or Lasonen-Aarnio (2014, 2015, 2018). See also Daoust (2018) for discussion.

  18. 18.

    See Lord (2018, chap. 7) and Kiesewetter (2017, 173–74) on this possibility.

References

  1. Bondy, P. (2018). Epistemic rationality and epistemic normativity. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boult, C. (2017a). Epistemic conditions on ‘ought’: E= K as a case study. Acta Analytica, 32(2), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boult, C. (2017b). Epistemic normativity and the justification-excuse distinction. Synthese, 194(10), 4065–4081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coates, A. (2012). Rational epistemic Akrasia. American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(2), 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism: essays in epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Daoust, M.-K. (2018). Epistemic akrasia and epistemic reasons. Episteme, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Demey, L. (2013). Contemporary epistemic logic and the Lockean thesis. Foundations of Science, 18(4), 599–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Easwaran, K. (2015). Dr. Truthlove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love Bayesian probabilities. Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12099/pdf.

  9. Easwaran, K., & Fitelson, B. (2015). Accuracy, coherence, and evidence. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5, 61–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foley, Richard. 2009. “Beliefs, degrees of belief, and the Lockean thesis.” In Degrees of Belief, 37–47. Springer.

  11. Grimm, S. R. (2009). Epistemic Normativity. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic Value (pp. 243–264). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kiesewetter, B. (2017). The normativity of rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kiesewetter, B. (2018). Can the lottery paradox be solved by identifying epistemic justification with epistemic permissibility? Episteme, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kroedel, T. (2011). The lottery paradox, epistemic justification and permissibility. Analysis, 72(1), 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (2014). Higher-order evidence and the limits of defeat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(2), 314–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lasonen-Aarnio. (2015). New rational reflection and internalism about rationality. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5, 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lasonen-Aarnio. (2018). Enkrasia or evidentialism? Learning to love mismatch. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1196-2.

  19. Littlejohn, C. (2011). Reasons and Belief’s Justification. In A. Reisner & A. Steglich-Petersen (Eds.), Reasons for Belief (pp. 111–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  20. Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the truth-connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Littlejohn, C. (2013). No evidence is false. Acta Analytica, 28, 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lord, E. (2014). The coherent and the rational. Analytic Philosophy, 55(2), 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lord, E. (2017). What you’re rationally required to do and what you ought to do (are the same thing!). Mind. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw023.

  24. Lord, E. (2018). The importance of being rational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Madison, B. J. C. (2017). On justifications and excuses. Synthese, 195, 4551–4562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1418-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitova, V. (2017). Believable evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nelson, M. T. (2010). We have no positive epistemic duties. Mind, 119(473), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Parfit, Derek. 2011. On what matters: volume one. Oxford University Press Oxford.

  30. Scanlon, T. M. (2009). Moral Dimensions. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schechter, J. (2013). Rational self-doubt and the failure of closure. Philosophical Studies, 163(2), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9823-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schechter, J. (2017). No need for excuses. Against knowledge-first epistemology and the knowledge norm of assertion. In J. Adam Carter, E. C. Gordon, & B. Jarvis (Eds.), Knowledge first: Approaches in epistemology and mind (pp. 132–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schechter, Joshua. Forthcoming. “Internalism and Entitlement to Rules and Methods.” In Epistemic Entitlement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  34. Simion, M., Kelp, C., & Ghijsen, H. (2016). Norms of belief. Philosophical Issues, 26(1), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sturgeon, S. (2008). Reason and the grain of belief. Noûs, 42(1), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sutton, J. (2005). Stick to what you know. Noûs, 39(3), 359–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0029-4624.2005.00506.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Turri, J. (2009). The ontology of epistemic reasons. Noûs, 43(3), 490–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wedgwood, R. (2017). The value of rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weiner, Matt. (2014). The spectra of epistemic norms. In C. Littlejohn & J. Turri (Eds.), Epistemic norms: new essays on action, belief, and assertion (pp. 201–217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  40. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.

  41. Williamson, Timothy. forthcoming. “Justification, Excuses and Sceptical Scenarios.” In The New Evil Demon, edited by Julien Dutant and Fabian Dorsch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  42. Wrenn, C. B. (2007). Why there are no epistemic duties. Dialogue, 46(1), 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Daniel Laurier, who has provided invaluable feedback on this paper.

Funding

This research was supported by the Groupe de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur la Normativité (GRIN) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (grant no. 767-2016-1771).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc-Kevin Daoust.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Marc-Kevin Daoust declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daoust, MK. A Puzzle About Knowledge, Blame, and Coherence. Acta Anal 34, 493–503 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00383-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Knowledge
  • Apparent reasons
  • Coherence
  • Blame
  • Epistemic norms