Philosophical Studies 176 (2):367-386 (2019)

Authors
Daniel Drucker
University of Texas at Austin
Abstract
We argue that philosophers ought to distinguish epistemic decision theory and epistemology, in just the way ordinary decision theory is distinguished from ethics. Once one does this, the internalist arguments that motivate much of epistemic decision theory make sense, given specific interpretations of the formalism. Making this distinction also causes trouble for the principle called Propriety, which says, roughly, that the only acceptable epistemic utility functions make probabilistically coherent credence functions immodest. We cast doubt on this requirement, but then argue that epistemic decision theorists should never have wanted such a strong principle in any case.
Keywords Epistemology  Epistemic consequentialism  Decision theory
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-1020-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Logic of Decision.Richard C. Jeffrey - 1965 - University of Chicago Press.
Accuracy and the Laws of Credence.Richard Pettigrew - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
Morals by Agreement.David Gauthier - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
Reflection and Disagreement.Adam Elga - 2007 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.
Internal and External Reasons.Bernard Williams - 1979 - In Ross Harrison (ed.), Rational Action. Cambridge University Press. pp. 101-113.

View all 46 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Updating for Externalists.J. Dmitri Gallow - 2021 - Noûs 55 (3):487-516.
Accuracy, Verisimilitude, and Scoring Rules.Jeffrey Dunn - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (1):151-166.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Epistemic Value and the Jamesian Goals.Sophie Horowitz - 2017 - In Jeffrey Dunn Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij (ed.), Epistemic Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Epistemic Consequentialism: Philip Percival.P. R. Percival - 2002 - Supplement to the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1):121-151.
Epistemic Consequentialism.Philip Percival - 2002 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):121–151.
Epistemic Consequentialism.Robert Stalnaker - 2002 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):153–168.
Epistemic Consequentialism.Jeff Dunn - 2015 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Right in the Good: A Defense of Teleological Non-Consequentialism in Epistemology.Clayton Littlejohn - forthcoming - In Kristoffer Ahlstrom-Vij Jeff Dunn (ed.), Epistemic Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Two Claims About Epistemic Propriety.E. J. Coffman - 2011 - Synthese 181 (3):471-488.
Who Cares What You Accurately Believe?Clayton Littlejohn - 2015 - Philosophical Perspectives 29 (1):217-248.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-22

Total views
392 ( #21,603 of 2,446,506 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #21,782 of 2,446,506 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes