Search results for 'Epistemic Normativity' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  74
    John Greco (2010). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge University Press.
    When we affirm that someone knows something, we are making a value judgment of sorts - we are claiming that there is something superior about that person's opinion, or their evidence, or perhaps about them. A central task of the theory of knowledge is to investigate the sort of evaluation at issue. This is the first book to make 'epistemic normativity,' or the normative dimension of knowledge and knowledge ascriptions, its central focus. John Greco argues that knowledge is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   94 citations  
  2.  16
    Tsung‐Hsing Ho (2016). Epistemic Normativity as Performance Normativity. Theoria 82 (2):n/a-n/a.
    Virtue epistemology maintains that epistemic normativity is a kind of performance normativity, according to which evaluating a belief is like evaluating a sport or musical performance. I examine this thesis through the objection that a belief cannot be evaluated as a performance because it is not a performance but a state. I argue that virtue epistemology can be defended on the grounds that we often evaluate a performance through evaluating the result of the performance. The upshot of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  20
    Charles Côté-Bouchard (forthcoming). Can the Aim of Belief Ground Epistemic Normativity? Philosophical Studies:1-18.
    For many epistemologists and normativity theorists, epistemic norms necessarily entail normative reasons. Why or in virtue of what do epistemic norms have this necessary normative authority? According to what I call epistemic constitutivism, it is ultimately because belief constitutively aims at truth. In this paper, I examine various versions of the aim of belief thesis and argue that none of them can plausibly ground the normative authority of epistemic norms. I conclude that epistemic constitutivism (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Qilin Li, Quine’s Naturalized Epistemology, Epistemic Normativity and the Gettier Problem.
    In this paper, it is argued that there are (at least) two different kinds of ‘epistemic normativity’ in epistemology, which can be scrutinized and revealed by some comparison with some naturalistic studies of ethics. The first kind of epistemic normativity can be naturalized, but the other not. The doctrines of Quine’s naturalized epistemology is firstly introduced; then Kim’s critique of Quine’s proposal is examined. It is argued that Quine’s naturalized epistemology is able to save some room (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  52
    Christopher Cowie (2014). In Defence of Instrumentalism About Epistemic Normativity. Synthese 191 (16):4003-4017.
    According to epistemic instrumentalists the normativity of evidence for belief is best explained in terms of the practical utility of forming evidentially supported beliefs. Traditional arguments for instrumentalism—arguments based on naturalism and motivation—lack suasive force against opponents. A new argument for the view—the Argument from Coincidence—is presented. The argument shows that only instrumentalists can avoid positing an embarrassing coincidence between the practical value of believing in accordance with one’s evidence, and the existence of reasons so to believe. Responses (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6. Søren Harnow Klausen (2009). Two Notions of Epistemic Normativity. Theoria 75 (3):161-178.
    The overwhelmingly dominant view of epistemic normativity has been an extreme form of deontology. I argue that although the pull towards deontology is quite understandable, given the traditional concerns of epistemology, there is no good reason for not also adopting a complementary consequentialist notion of epistemic normativity, which can be put to use in applied epistemology. I further argue that this consequentialist notion is not, despite appearances and popular sentiment to the contrary, any less genuinely (...) than the deontological notion and that it may even be considered more genuinely normative. (shrink)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  50
    Chase Wrenn (2004). Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.
    In this paper, I consider an argument of Harvey Siegel's according to which there can be no hypothetical normativity anywhere unless there is categorical normativity in epistemology. The argument fails because it falsely assumes people must be bound by epistemic norms in order to have justified beliefs.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  38
    Harvey Siegel & John Biro (1997). Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies. Argumentation 11 (3):277-292.
    In Biro and Siegel we argued that a theory of argumentation mustfully engage the normativity of judgments about arguments, and we developedsuch a theory. In this paper we further develop and defend our theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  9.  77
    Daan Evers (2015). Street on Evolution and the Normativity of Epistemic Reasons. Synthese 192 (11):3663-3676.
    Sharon Street argues that realism about epistemic normativity is false. Realists believe there are truths about epistemic reasons that hold independently of the agent’s attitudes. Street argues by dilemma. Either the realist accepts a certain account of the nature of belief, or she does not. If she does, then she cannot consistently accept realism. If she does not, then she has no scientifically credible explanation of the fact that our epistemic behaviours or beliefs about (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  76
    John Skorupskispecial Issue On Normativity & Edited by Teresa Marques Rationality (2007). What is Normativity? Special Issue on Normativity and Rationality, Edited by Teresa Marques 2 (23).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  39
    Guy Axtell (2012). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. By John Greco. (Cambridge UP, 2010. Pp. X + 205. Price £17.99/US$29.99.). [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 62 (246):208-211.
    A Review of John Greco's book Acheiving Knowledge. The critical points I make involve three claims Greco makes that represent common ground between the reliabilists (including agent reliabilists like himself) and the character epistemologists (which would include myself): I. Such virtues are often needed to make our cognitive abilities reliable (to turn mere faculties into excellences); II. Such virtues might be essentially involved in goods other than knowledge; III. Such virtues might be valuable in themselves.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  18
    Pascal Engelspecial Issue On Normativity & Edited by Teresa Marques Rationality (2007). Belief and Normativity. Special Issue on Normativity and Rationality, Edited by Teresa Marques (23).
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Adam C. Podlaskowski & Joshua A. Smith (2011). Infinitism and Epistemic Normativity. Synthese 178 (3):515-527.
    Klein’s account of epistemic justification, infinitism, supplies a novel solution to the regress problem. We argue that concentrating on the normative aspect of justification exposes a number of unpalatable consequences for infinitism, all of which warrant rejecting the position. As an intermediary step, we develop a stronger version of the ‘finite minds’ objection.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14. Stephen R. Grimm (2009). Epistemic Normativity. In Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar & Duncan Pritchard (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press 243-264.
    In this article, from the 2009 Oxford University Press collection Epistemic Value, I criticize existing accounts of epistemic normativity by Alston, Goldman, and Sosa, and then offer a new view.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  15.  77
    David Owens (2000). Reason Without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. Routledge.
    We call beliefs reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified. What does this imply about belief? Does this imply that we are responsible for our beliefs and that we should be blamed for our unreasonable convictions? Or does it imply that we are in control of our beliefs and that what we believe is up to us? Reason Without Freedom argues that the major problems of epistemology have their roots in concerns about our control over and responsibility for belief. Owens focuses (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   66 citations  
  16.  24
    Eric T. Kerr & J. Adam Carter (2015). Richard Rorty and Epistemic Normativity. Social Epistemology 30 (1):3-24.
    The topic of epistemic normativity has come to the fore of recent work in epistemology, and so naturally, theories of knowledge, truth and justification have been increasingly held accountable to preserving normative epistemological platitudes. Central to discussions of epistemic normativity are questions about epistemic agency and epistemic value. Here, our aim is to take up some of these issues as they come to bear on the rather unconventional brand of epistemology that was defended by (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  21
    Zachary Silver (2006). Epistemic Side Constraints and the Structure of Epistemic Normativity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (1):129-153.
    In this paper, I develop the notion of an epistemic side constraint in order to overcome one of the main challenges to a goal-based approach to the structure of epistemic normativity. I argue that the rationale for such side constraints can be found in the work of John Locke and that his argument is best understood as the epistemic analog to David Gauthier’s argument as to the rationality of being moral.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  28
    Peter J. Graham (2015). Epistemic Normativity and Social Norms. In David Henderson & John Greco (eds.), Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology. Oxford University Press 247-273.
  19. Hilary Kornblith (1993). Epistemic Normativity. Synthese 94 (3):357 - 376.
    This paper examines the source and content of epistemic norms. In virtue of what is it that epistemic norms have their normative force? A semantic approach to this question, due to Alvin Goldman, is examined and found unacceptable. Instead, accounts seeking to ground epistemic norms in our desires are argued to be most promising. All of these accounts make epistemic norms a variety of hypothetical imperative. It is argued that such an account (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   27 citations  
  20. Dalibor Renić (2012). Ethical & Epistemic Normativity: Lonergan & Virtue Epistemology. Marquette University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Jonathan M. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols & Stephen Stich (2001). Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions. Philosophical Topics, 29 (1-2):429-460.
    In this paper we propose to argue for two claims. The first is that a sizeable group of epistemological projects – a group which includes much of what has been done in epistemology in the analytic tradition – would be seriously undermined if one or more of a cluster of empirical hypotheses about epistemic intuitions turns out to be true. The basis for this claim will be set out in Section 2. The second claim is that, while the jury (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   189 citations  
  22. David Owens (2002). Reason Without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. Routledge.
    We call beliefs reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified. What does this imply about belief? Does this imply that we are responsible for our beliefs and that we should be blamed for our unreasonable convictions? Or does it imply that we are in control of our beliefs and that what we believe is up to us? Reason Without Freedom argues that the major problems of epistemology have their roots in concerns about our control over and responsibility for belief. David Owens (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23.  26
    Christian Onof (2008). Property Dualism, Epistemic Normativity, and the Limits of Naturalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1):60-85.
    This paper examines some consequences of the (quasi-)epiphenomenalism implied by a property dualistic view of phenomenal consciousness. The focus is upon the variation of phenomenal content over time. A thought-experiment is constructed to support two claims. The weaker claim exhibits an incompatibility which arises in certain logically possible situations between a conscious subject’s epistemic norms and the requirement that one be aware of one’s conscious experience. This could be interpreted as providing some epistemic grounds for the postulation of (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  22
    Christian J. Onof (2008). Property Dualism, Epistemic Normativity and the Limits of Naturalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (1):60-85.
    This paper examines some consequences of the (quasi-)epiphenomenalism implied by a property dualistic view of phenomenal consciousness. The focus is upon the variation of phenomenal content over time. A thought-experiment is constructed to support two claims. The weaker claim exhibits an incompatibility which arises in certain logically possible situations between a conscious subjecfs epistemicnorms and the requirement that one be aware of one’s conscious experience. This could be interpreted as providing some epistemic grounds for the postulation of bridging laws (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Hamid Seyedsayamdost (2015). On Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions: Failure of Replication. Episteme 12 (1):95-116.
    In one of the earlier influential papers in the field of experimental philosophy titled Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions published in 2001, Jonathan M. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols and Stephen Stich reported that respondents answered Gettier type questions differently depending on their ethnic background as well as socioeconomic status. There is currently a debate going on, on the significance of the results of Weinberg et al. (2001) and its implications for philosophical methodology in general and epistemology in specific. Despite the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  26.  28
    John Turri (2012). Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity, by John Greco. [REVIEW] Mind 121 (481):183-187.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  27.  79
    Eugene Mills (2002). Review: Reason Without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. [REVIEW] Mind 111 (442):462-466.
  28. Thom Brooks (2004). Reason Without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):513.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  16
    Edgar Valdez (2013). Ethical & Epistemic Normativity: Lonergan & Virtue Epistemology By Dalibor Renic. The Lonergan Review 4 (1):223-227.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  11
    Joëlle Proust (2011). Epistemic Normativity From the Reasoner's Viewpoint. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (5):265-265.
    Elqayam & Evans (E&E) are focused on the normative judgments used by theorists to characterize subjects' performances (e.g. in terms of logic or probability theory). They ignore the fact, however, that subjects themselves have an independent ability to evaluate their own reasoning performance, and that this ability plays a major role in controlling their first-order reasoning tasks.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  3
    Christopher Friel (2013). Ethical & Epistemic Normativity: Lonergan & Virtue Epistemology. By Dalibor Renić. Pp. 268, Milwaukee, WI, Marquette University Press, 2012, $29.00. [REVIEW] Heythrop Journal 54 (5):904-905.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. David Owen & Todd Stewart (2002). David Owens, Reason Without Freedom: The Problem of Epistemic Normativity Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 22 (1):63-66.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. D. Owens & N. Vassallo (2003). Recensioni/Reviews-Reason Without Freedom. The Problem of Epistemic Normativity. Epistemologia 26 (2):354-355.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  12
    Simon Robertson (2011). Epistemic Constraints on Practical Normativity. Synthese 181 (Supp.1):81-106.
    What is the relation between what we ought to do, on the one hand, and our epistemic access to the ought-giving facts, on the other? In assessing this, it is common to distinguish ‘objective’ from ‘subjective’ oughts. Very roughly, on the objectivist conception what an agent ought to do is determined by ought-giving facts in such a way that does not depend on the agent’s beliefs about, or epistemic access to, those facts; whereas on the subjectivist conception, what (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  35.  11
    Barbara Trybulec (2008). The Meaning of “Normativity” Within Naturalized Epistemology. Some Consequences of Naturalizing Epistemic Norms. Dialogue and Universalism 18 (7/8):149-160.
    The paper undertakes the problem of normativity within naturalized epistemology. The following issue is analyzed: can naturalism be developed as a normative enterprise, and if it can, what conditions it must satisfy to achieve a status of epistemology? According to “the standard condition”, in order to give a substantial account of normativity naturalism must present a theory of epistemic norms which are derived from descriptive statements about facts but which are not reduced to them. The thesis is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Simon Robertson (2011). Epistemic Constraints on Practical Normativity. Synthese 181 (S1):81-106.
    What is the relation between what we ought to do, on the one hand, and our epistemic access to the ought-giving facts, on the other? In assessing this,it is common to distinguish ‘objective’ from ‘subjective’ oughts. Very roughly, on the objectivist conception what an agent ought to do is determined by ought-giving facts in such a way that does not depend on the agent’s beliefs about, or epistemic access to, those facts; whereas on the subjectivist conception, what an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  83
    Kurt Sylvan (forthcoming). Epistemic Reasons I: Normativity. Philosophy Compass.
  38. Daniel Whiting (2009). On Epistemic Conceptions of Meaning: Use, Meaning and Normativity. European Journal of Philosophy 17 (3):416-434.
    A number of prominent philosophers advance the following ideas: (1) Meaning is use. (2) Meaning is an intrinsically normative notion. Call (1) the use thesis, hereafter UT, and (2) the normativity thesis, hereafter NT. They come together in the view that for a linguistic expression to have meaning is for there to be certain proprieties governing its employment.1 These ideas are often associated with a third.
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39. Allan Hazlett (forthcoming). Expressivism and Convention-Relativism About Epistemic Discourse. In A. Fairweather & O. Flanagan (eds.), Naturalizing Epistemic Virtue. Cambridge University Press
    Consider the claim that openmindedness is an epistemic virtue, the claim that true belief is epistemically valuable, and the claim that one epistemically ought to cleave to one’s evidence. These are examples of what I’ll call “ epistemic discourse.” In this paper I’ll propose and defend a view called “convention-relativism about epistemic discourse.” In particular, I’ll argue that convention-relativismis superior to its main rival, expressivism about epistemic discourse. Expressivism and conventionalism both jibe (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Sharon Street (2009). Evolution and the Normativity of Epistemic Reasons. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (sup1):213-248.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  41.  31
    Charles Côté-Bouchard (2015). Epistemic Instrumentalism and the Too Few Reasons Objection. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 23 (3):337-355.
    According to epistemic instrumentalism, epistemic normativity arises from and depends on facts about our ends. On that view, a consideration C is an epistemic reason for a subject S to Φ only if Φ-ing would promote an end that S has. However, according to the Too Few Epistemic Reasons objection, this cannot be correct since there are cases in which, intuitively, C is an epistemic reason for S to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42. Ernest Sosa (2009). Knowing Full Well: The Normativity of Beliefs as Performances. Philosophical Studies 142 (1):5 - 15.
    Belief is considered a kind of performance, which attains one level of success if it is true (or accurate), a second level if competent (or adroit), and a third if true because competent (or apt). Knowledge on one level (the animal level) is apt belief. The epistemic normativity constitutive of such knowledge is thus a kind of performance normativity. A problem is posed for this account by the fact that suspension of belief seems to fall under the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  43.  75
    Howard Sankey (2012). Kuhn, Normativity and History and Philosophy of Science. Epistemologia:103-111.
    This paper addresses the relationship between the history and philosophy of science by way of the issue of epistemic normativity. After brief discussion of the relationship between history and philosophy of science in Kuhn’s own thinking, the paper focuses on the implications of the history of science for epistemic normativity. There may be historical evidence for change of scientific methodology, which may seem to support a position of epistemic relativism. However, the fact that the methods (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44.  22
    Peter MacHamer & Lisa Osbeck (2003). Scientific Normativity as Non-Epistemic: A Hidden Kuhnian Legacy. Social Epistemology 17 (1):3 – 11.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  5
    Dalibor Renić (2010). The Debate on Epistemic and Ethical Normativity. Disputatio Philosophica 12 (1):93-119.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Conor McHugh Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.) (forthcoming). Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Conor McHugh Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.) (forthcoming). Normativity: Practical and Epistemic.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Conor McHugh, Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.) (forthcoming). Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  11
    Derek Baker (forthcoming). The Varieties of Normativity. In Tristram McPherson David Plunkett (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Taylor and Francis
    This paper discusses different varieties of normative phenomena, ranging from morality, to epistemic justification, to the rules of chess. It canvases a number of distinctions among these different normative phenomena. The most significant distinction is between formal and authoritative normativity. The prior is the normativity exhibited by any standard one can meet or fail to meet. The latter is the sort of normativity associated with phenomena like the "all-things-considered" ought. The paper ends with a brief discussion (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. John Turri (2013). Infinitism, Finitude and Normativity. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):791-795.
    I evaluate two new objections to an infinitist account of epistemic justification, and conclude that they fail to raise any new problems for infinitism. The new objections are a refined version of the finite-mind objection, which says infinitism demands more than finite minds can muster, and the normativity objection, which says infinitism entails that we are epistemically blameless in holding all our beliefs. I show how resources deployed in response to the most popular objection to infinitism, the original (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 1000