Synthese 197 (9):4109-4130 (2020)

Authors
Thomas Grundmann
University of Cologne
Abstract
Modern societies are characterized by a division of epistemic labor between laypeople and epistemic authorities. Authorities are often far more competent than laypeople and can thus, ideally, inform their beliefs. But how should laypeople rationally respond to an authority’s beliefs if they already have beliefs and reasons of their own concerning some subject matter? According to the standard view, the beliefs of epistemic authorities are just further, albeit weighty, pieces of evidence. In contrast, the Preemption View claims that, when one discovers what an authority believes, it is not permissible to rely on any of one’s own reasons concerning the subject matter. The original version of this view, as proposed by Linda Zagzebski, has recently been severely criticized for recommending blind trust and for abandoning even minimal standards for critical thinking. In our paper, we defend a new version of the Preemption View—Defeatist Preemptionism—in a way that differs radically from Zagzebski’s. We argue that our view can be derived from certain widely accepted general epistemic principles. In particular, we claim that preemption can be identified as a special case of source sensitive defeat. Moreover, we argue that Defeatist Preemptionism does not lead to the undesirable consequences that critics ascribe to the Preemption View. The paper thus articulates the foundations and refinements of the Preemption View, such that it adequately captures the phenomenon of epistemic authority and the rational requirements related to it.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-018-01923-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,263
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

Truth and Method.H. G. Gadamer - 1975 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 36 (4):487-490.
Reflection and Disagreement.Adam Elga - 2007 - Noûs 41 (3):478–502.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Epistemological Problems of Testimony.Jonathan E. Adler - 2006 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Zagzebski on Authority and Preemption in the Domain of Belief.Arnon Keren - 2014 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (4):61-76.
Epistemic authority and autonomy of the epistemic subject.Igor Gasparov - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 53 (3):108-122.
A Defense of Epistemic Authority.Linda Zagzebski - 2013 - Res Philosophica 90 (2):293-306.
Believing on Authority.Matthew A. Benton - 2014 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 6 (4):133-144.
Expert Testimony, Law and Epistemic Authority.Tony Ward - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (2):263-277.
Epistemic authority.Linda Zagzebski - 2017 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 53 (3):92-107.
The Knowers in Charge.Michael P. Lynch & Nathan Sheff - 2016 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 6 (1):53-63.
The Preemption Problem.Jens Johansson & Olle Risberg - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (2):351-365.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-09-04

Total views
159 ( #66,334 of 2,448,517 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #33,318 of 2,448,517 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes