The Social Value of Non-Deferential Belief

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):131-151 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We often prefer non-deferential belief to deferential belief. In the last twenty years, epistemology has seen a surge of sympathetic interest in testimony as a source of knowledge. We are urged to abandon ‘epistemic individualism’ and the ideal of the ‘autonomous knower’ in favour of ‘social epistemology’. In this connection, you might think that a preference for non-deferential belief is a manifestation of vicious individualism, egotism, or egoism. I shall call this the selfishness challenge to preferring non-deferential belief. The aim of this paper is to meet the selfishness challenge by arguing that non-deferential belief is socially valuable

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On the possibility of group knowledge without belief.Raul Hakli - 2007 - Social Epistemology 21 (3):249 – 266.
Belief-in and Belief in God.John N. Williams - 1992 - Religious Studies 28 (3):401-405.
Why believe?John Cottingham - 2009 - New York: Continuum.
A Note on Jaakko Hintikka's "Knowledge and Belief".Paul Weingartner - 1994 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 49 (1):135-147.
A post-deferential society?Colin A. Holmes - 2011 - Nursing Inquiry 18 (3):185-187.
Why responsible belief is blameless belief.Anthony Robert Booth & Rik Peels - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (5):257-265.
Moral integrity and the deferential wife.Marilyn A. Friedman - 1985 - Philosophical Studies 47 (1):141 - 150.
Deferential concepts: A response to Woodfield.François Recanati - 2000 - Mind and Language 15 (4):452–464.
The ethics of belief.Andrew Chignell - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Does belief (only) aim at the truth?Daniel Whiting - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):279-300.
Can we believe what we do not understand?François Recanati - 1997 - Mind and Language 12 (1):84-100.
Servility, critical deference and the deferential wife.Marcia Baron - 1985 - Philosophical Studies 48 (3):393 - 400.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-06-12

Downloads
153 (#119,165)

6 months
20 (#119,793)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Allan Hazlett
Washington University in St. Louis

Citations of this work

The Epistemic Value of Expert Autonomy.Finnur Dellsén - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2):344-361.
Why Think for Yourself?Jonathan Matheson - 2022 - Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology:1-19.
What's Wrong with Partisan Deference?Elise Woodard - forthcoming - In Worsnip Alex (ed.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
False Intellectual Humility.Allan Hazlett - 2021 - In Mark Alfano, Michael Patrick Lynch & Alessandra Tanesini (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Humility. New York, NY: Routledge.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition.John Rawls - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
On Virtue Ethics.Rosalind Hursthouse - 1999 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.

View all 54 references / Add more references