Acta Analytica 23 (1):1-8 (2008)

Authors
Wayne Riggs
University of Oklahoma
Abstract
It is generally assumed that there are (at least) two fundamental epistemic goals: believing truths, and avoiding the acceptance of falsehoods. As has been often noted, these goals are in conflict with one another. Moreover, the norms governing rational belief that we should derive from these two goals depend on how we weight them relative to one another. However, it is not obvious that there is one objectively correct weighting for everyone in all circumstances. Indeed, as I shall argue, it looks as though there are circumstances in which a range of possible weightings of the two goals are all equally epistemically rational.
Keywords Justification  Epistemology  Risk  Relativism  Theory of knowledge
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12136-008-0020-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,118
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

Balancing Our Epistemic Goals.Wayne D. Riggs - 2003 - Noûs 37 (2):342–352.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Epistemic Teleology and the Separateness of Propositions.Selim Berker - 2013 - Philosophical Review 122 (3):337-393.
What Is Justified Group Belief.Jennifer Lackey - 2016 - Philosophical Review Recent Issues 125 (3):341-396.
Friendship and Epistemic Norms.Jason Kawall - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (2):349-370.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Epistemic Relativism.Ram Neta - 2007 - Episteme 4 (1):30-48.
Scepticism, Relativism and the Argument From the Criterion.Howard Sankey - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):182-190.
The Trivial Argument for Epistemic Value Pluralism. Or How I Learned to Stop Caring About Truth.Berit Brogaard - 2008 - In Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press.
Epistemic Relativism and Reasonable Disagreement.Alvin I. Goldman - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 187-215.
Collective Epistemic Goals.Don Fallis - 2007 - Social Epistemology 21 (3):267 – 280.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
81 ( #112,877 of 2,324,566 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #230,295 of 2,324,566 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes