Withhold by Default: A Difference Between Epistemic and Practical Rationality

Philosophical Studies (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It may seem that epistemic and practical rationality weigh reasons differently, because ties in practical rationality tend to generate permissions and ties in epistemic rationality tend to generate a requirement to withhold judgment. I argue that epistemic and practical rationality weigh reasons in the same way, but they have different "default biases". Practical rationality is biased toward every option being permissible whereas epistemic rationality is biased toward withholding judgment's being required.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Putting particularism in its place.Joshua Gert - 2008 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):312-324.
Irrationality and cognition.John L. Pollock - 2008 - In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: new essays. New York : Oxford University Press,: Oxford University Press.
The Beliefs and Intentions of Buridan's Ass.Nathaniel Sharadin & Finnur Dellsén - 2017 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (2):209-226.
The Ineliminability of Epistemic Rationality.David Christensen - 2020 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 103 (3):501-517.
Stakes, withholding, and pragmatic encroachment on knowledge.Mark Schroeder - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (2):265 - 285.
Epistemic Entitlement: Intellectual Desires and Epistemic Rationality.Junyeol Kim - 2021 - In Luca Moretti & Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen (eds.), Non-Evidentialist Epistemology. Leiden: Brill. pp. 139-151.
Why There are No Epistemic Duties.Chase B. Wrenn - 2007 - Dialogue: The Canadian Philosophical Review 46 (1):115-136.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-10-07

Downloads
395 (#50,002)

6 months
286 (#7,801)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chris Tucker
William & Mary

Citations of this work

In defence of object-given reasons.Michael Vollmer - 2024 - Philosophical Studies 181 (2):485-511.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Suspended judgment.Jane Friedman - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (2):165-181.
The Uniqueness Thesis.Matthew Kopec & Michael G. Titelbaum - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (4):189-200.
Weighing epistemic and practical reasons for belief.Christopher Howard - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (8):2227-2243.

View all 13 references / Add more references