Affiliation:
1. Brandon University , Canada
Abstract
Abstract
We regularly make graded normative judgements in the epistemic domain. Recent work in the literature examines degrees of justification, degrees of rationality, and degrees of assertability. This paper addresses a different dimension of the gradeability of epistemic normativity, one that has been given little attention. How should we understand degrees of epistemic criticizability? In virtue of what sorts of factors can one epistemic failing be worse than another? The paper develops a dual-factor view of degrees of epistemic criticizability. According to the view, degrees of epistemic criticizability are (i) an inverse function of degrees of doxastic justification and (ii) a function of degrees of agent culpability. The paper develops an account of each factor, and explains how they should be weighted. The paper also addresses the importance of modelling degrees of epistemic criticizability in a broader context. I focus on the role that such a model can play in the ethics of epistemic criticism.
Funder
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference48 articles.
1. Epistemic Blame and the New Evil Demon Problem;Ballarini;Synthese,2022)
2. Epistemic Normativity and the Justification–Excuse Distinction;Boult;Synthese,2017)
3. There Is a Distinctively Epistemic Kind of Blame;Boult;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2021
4. The Significance of Epistemic Blame;Boult;Erkenntnis,2021)
5. What is Epistemic Blame?;Brown;Noûs,2020)