Abstract
AbstractVice epistemology studies how character traits, attitudes, or thinking styles systematically get in the way of knowledge, while doxastic responsibility is concerned with what kinds of responses are appropriate towards agents who believe badly. This paper identifies a new connection between these two fields, arguing that our propensity to take responsibility for our doxastic failures is directly relevant for vice epistemology, and in particular, understanding the social obstacles to knowledge that epistemic vices can create. This is because responses to norm violations are an important mechanism by which norms are upheld, and maintaining epistemic norms is crucial for our collective epistemic successes. This paper then identifies a new kind of vice, one which is bad precisely because of the way it undermines the epistemic norms that our blaming practices help maintain, and thus the benefits that said norms create. I call this vice epistemic evasiveness, and it concerns the attitude that one takes towards their own performance as an epistemic agent. Evasiveness is bad because it creates uncertainty about which agents are reliable, it prevents holders of this attitude from learning from their mistakes, and it signals to third parties that the norm is not being upheld, making them less likely to follow the norm.
Funder
The University of Notre Dame Australia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference71 articles.
1. Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6), 1236–1239.
2. Battaly, H. (2019). Vice epistemology has a responsibility problem. Philosophical Issues, 29(1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12138.
3. Bicchieri, C., Muldoon, R., Sontuoso, A. S., & Norms, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/social-norms/
4. Bicchieri, C. (2005). The Grammar of Society: the Nature and Dynamics of Social norms. Cambridge University Press.
5. Bicchieri, C. (2014). Norms, Conventions, and the power of expectations. In N. Cartwright, & E. Montuschi (Eds.), The philosophy of Social Science: a new introduction (pp. 208–229). Oxford University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Epistemic Hypocrisy and Standing to Blame;Erkenntnis;2024-05-17
2. Virtuous Accounting;Philosophical Psychology;2023-06-11