Philosophical Studies 175 (10):2649-2675 (2018)

Authors
Will Fleisher
Northeastern University
Abstract
It is valuable for inquiry to have researchers who are committed advocates of their own theories. However, in light of pervasive disagreement, such a commitment is not well explained by the idea that researchers believe their theories. Instead, this commitment, the rational attitude to take toward one’s favored theory during the course of inquiry, is what I call endorsement. Endorsement is a doxastic attitude, but one which is governed by a different type of epistemic rationality. This inclusive epistemic rationality is sensitive to reasons beyond those to think the particular proposition in question is true. Instead, it includes extrinsic epistemic reasons, which concern the health of inquiry more generally. Such extrinsic reasons include the distribution of cognitive labor that a researcher will contribute to by endorsing a particular theory. Recognizing endorsement and inclusive epistemic rationality thus allows us to smooth a tension between individual rationality and collective rationality. It does so by showing how it can be epistemically rational to endorse a theory on the basis of the way this endorsement will benefit collective inquiry. I provide a decision theoretic treatment for inclusive epistemic rationality and endorsement which illustrates how this can be accomplished.
Keywords Epistemology  Social Epistemology  General Philosophy of Science  Decision Theory  Disagreement  Acceptance
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-017-0976-4
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

Accuracy and the Laws of Credence.Richard Pettigrew - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
Doxastic Deliberation.Nishi Shah & J. David Velleman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (4):497-534.
No Exception for Belief.Susanna Rinard - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94 (1):121-143.

View all 92 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Publishing Without (Some) Belief.Will Fleisher - forthcoming - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy.
How to Endorse Conciliationism.Will Fleisher - forthcoming - Synthese:1-27.
Akratic (Epistemic) Modesty.David Christensen - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Resonance, Moorean Theories and Reflective Endorsement.Patrick H. Yarnell - 2006 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (1):155-172.
Why Change the Subject? On Collective Epistemic Agency.András Szigeti - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (4):843-864.
Moral Reasons, Epistemic Reasons, and Rationality.Alex Worsnip - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263):341-361.
Wisdom, Knowledge and Rationality.Sharon Ryan - 2012 - Acta Analytica 27 (2):99-112.
No Exception for Belief.Susanna Rinard - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94 (1):121-143.
Irrationality and Cognition.John L. Pollock - 2008 - In Quentin Smith (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford University Press.
Rationally Agential Pleasure? A Kantian Proposal.Keren Gorodeisky - 2018 - In Lisa Shapiro (ed.), Pleasure: a History. Oxford University Press. pp. 167-194.
Epistemic Instrumentalism.Matthew Lockard - 2013 - Synthese 190 (9):1701-1718.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-09-01

Total views
185 ( #48,026 of 2,348,299 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
43 ( #15,716 of 2,348,299 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes