Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T13:01:08.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Epistemic Normativity Value-Based?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

CHARLES CÔTÉ-BOUCHARD Open the ORCID record for CHARLES CÔTÉ-BOUCHARD [Opens in a new window]
CHARLES CÔTÉ-BOUCHARD*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
*
*<charles.cote79@gmail.com>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is the source of epistemic normativity? In virtue of what do epistemic norms have categorical normative authority? According to epistemic teleologism, epistemic normativity comes from value. Epistemic norms have categorical authority because conforming to them is necessarily good in some relevant sense. In this article, I argue that epistemic teleologism should be rejected. The problem, I argue, is that there is no relevant sense in which it is necessarily good to believe in accordance with epistemic norms, including in cases where the matter at hand is completely trivial. Therefore, if epistemology is normative, its normativity won’t come from value.

Quelle est la source de la normativité épistémique? En vertu de quoi les normes épistémiques possèdent-elles une autorité normative catégorique? Selon la réponse téléologique, la normativité épistémique provient de la valeur. Les normes épistémiques ont une autorité catégorique parce qu’il est nécessairement bon de s’y conformer. Dans cet article, je soutiens que le téléologisme épistémique doit être rejeté. Le problème est qu’il n’y a pas de sens pertinent dans lequel croire en conformité avec les normes épistémiques est nécessairement bon, même lorsque la croyance en question est complètement triviale. Si l’épistémologie est normative, sa normativité ne provient pas de la valeur.

Keywords

epistemic normativitymetaepistemologyvalueepistemic normsepistemic valuenormativitymetanormativity
Type
Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 Essay Prize Winners
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 407 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1957 Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael 2006 Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander 2007 “Justified Judging.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1): 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, John 2013 Rationality through Reasoning. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler 2003 “Perceptual Entitlement.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3): 503–548.Google Scholar
Côté-Bouchard, Charles 2015 “Epistemic Instrumentalism and the Too Few Reasons Objection.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 23 (3): 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté-Bouchard, Charles 2016 “Can the Aim of Belief Ground Epistemic Normativity?” Philosophical Studies 173 (12): 3181–3198.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence 2007 The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
David, Marian 2005 “On ‘Truth is Good.’” Philosophical Books 46 (4): 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassio, Davide 2011 “Belief, Correctness and Normativity.” Logique et Analyse 54 (216): 471–486.Google Scholar
Gibbons, John 2013 The Norm of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Peter 2012 “Epistemic Entitlement.” Noûs 46 (3): 449–482.Google Scholar
Grimm, Stephen R. 2009 “Epistemic Normativity.” In Epistemic Value, edited by Haddock, Adrian, Millar, Alan, and Pritchard, Duncan, 243–264: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hattiangadi, Anandi 2007 Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, Allan 2013 A Luxury of the Understanding: On the Value of True Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul 2006 “The Value of Truth.” Noûs 40 (2): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Richard 2001 The Myth of Morality Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2003 “Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3): 612–640.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2007 “Evidence and Normativity: Reply to Leite.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2): 465–474.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon 1988 “What is ‘Naturalized Epistemology?’” Philosophical Perspectives 2: 381–405.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary 1993 “Epistemic Normativity.” Synthese 94 (3): 357–376.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan 2008 “Pointless Truth.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 32 (1): 199–212.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry 1990a “Aim-Less Epistemology?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (2): 315–322.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry 1990b “Normative Naturalism.” Philosophy of Science 57 (1): 44–59.Google Scholar
Leite, Adam 2007 “Epistemic Instrumentalism and Reasons for Belief: A Reply to Tom Kelly’s Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2): 456–464.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, Clayton 2013 “The Russellian Retreat.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 113 (3pt3): 293–320.Google Scholar
Lockard, Matthew 2013 “Epistemic Instrumentalism.” Synthese 190 (9): 1701–1718.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael 2004 True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maffie, James 1990 “Naturalism and the Normativity of Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 59 (3): 333–349.Google Scholar
Maguire, Barry, and Woods, Jack Ms. “Explaining Epistemic Normativity.”Google Scholar
McGrath, Matthew 2005 “Lynch on the Value of Truth.” Philosophical Books 46 (4): 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHugh, Conor 2011 “What Do We Aim At When We Believe?” Dialectica 65 (3): 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Tristram 2011 “Against Quietist Normative Realism.” Philosophical Studies 154 (2): 223–240.Google Scholar
Nolfi, Kate 2015 “How to be a Normativist about the Nature of Belief.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (2): 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Jonas 2014 Moral Error Theory: History, Critique, Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, David 2013 “There Are no Norms of Belief.” In The Aim of Belief, edited by Chan, Timothy, 64-79: Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek 2011 On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph 2011 From Normativity to Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, Richard 2013 “Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Setiya, Kieran 2003 “Explaining Action.” Philosophical Review 112 (3): 339–393.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest 2007 A Virtue Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, David 2000 The Possibility of Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whiting, Daniel 2013 “The Good and the True (Or the Bad and the False).” Philosophy 8 (2): 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrenn, Chase B. 2015a Truth. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Wrenn, Chase B. 2015b “Truth is Not (Very) Intrinsically Valuable.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (2): 108–128.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda 2003 “The Search for the Source of Epistemic Good.” Metaphilosophy 34 (1-2): 12–28.Google Scholar