Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:18:57.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Evidence Isn't Enough: Suspension, Evidentialism, and Knowledge-first Virtue Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2019

Lisa Miracchi
Lisa Miracchi*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
*Email: miracchi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I motivate and develop a novel account of the epistemic assessability of suspension as a development of my knowledge-first, virtue-epistemological research program. First, I extend an argument of Ernest Sosa's for the claim that evidentialism cannot adequately account for the epistemic assessability of suspension. This includes a kind of knowledge-first evidentialism of the sort advocated by Timothy Williamson. I agree with Sosa that the reasons why evidentialism fails motivate a virtue-epistemological approach, but argue that my knowledge-first account is preferable to his view. According to my account, rational belief is belief that manifests proper practical respect for what it takes to know. Beliefs are the only primary bearers of epistemic evaluation since they are the only candidates for knowledge. However, suspension can manifest a derivative kind of practical respect for what it takes to know. Thus, we can explain why the same sort of assessment is applicable to both belief and suspension (epistemic rationality), and why belief has a privileged claim to these properties. Lastly, I'll look at Sosa's and Williamson's treatments of Pyrrhonian skepticism, which treats a certain kind of suspension as the epistemically superior practice, and argue that my account provides a better anti-skeptical response than either of their approaches.

Keywords

evidentialismknowledge-first epistemologyvirtue epistemologyskepticismsuspension
Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Special Issue 4: 2018 Episteme Conference in Honor of Ernest Sosa , December 2019 , pp. 413 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Alston, W.P. (1988). ‘The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification.’ Philosophical Perspectives 2, 257–99.Google Scholar
Aristotle (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bump, P. (2018). ‘Analysis: What We Learned from the Democratic Response to the Nunes Memo and What We Didn't.’ Chicago Tribune.Google Scholar
Empiricus, S. (2000). Outlines of Scepticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleisher, W. (2017). ‘Virtuous Distinctions.’ Synthese 194(8), 2973–3003.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2018). To the Best of Our Knowledge: Social Expectations and Epistemic Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N. (1983). ‘The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.’ In Harding, S. and Hintikka, M.B. (eds), Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, pp. 283–310. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the Truth Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, E. (2018). The Importance of Being Rational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2015 a). ‘Competence to Know.’ Philosophical Studies 172(1), 29–56.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2015 b). ‘Knowledge is All you Need.’ Philosophical Issues 25(1), 353–78.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2017 a). ‘Epistemic Agency and the Generality Problem.’ Philosophical Topics 45(1), 107–20.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (2017 b). ‘Perspectival Externalism is the Antidote to Radical Skepticism.’ Episteme 14(3), 363–79.Google Scholar
Miracchi, L. (Forthcoming). ‘Competent Perspectives and the New Evil Demon Problem.’ In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (eds), The New Evil Demon: New Essays on Knowledge, Justification and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
NPR (2018). Fact Check: Read the GOP Memo Released by House Intelligence Committee. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/02/582828461/fact-check-read-the-gop-memo-released-by-house-intelligence-committee?t=1569676057957.Google Scholar
Peels, R. (2017). Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2011). Knowing Full Well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2019). ‘Suspension as Spandrel.’ Episteme in press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (Forthcoming). ‘Suspension and Evidentialism.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Sylvan, K. (2018). ‘Veritism Unswamped.’ Mind 506, 381–435.Google Scholar
Toole, B. (2018). Knowledge and Social Identity. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (Forthcoming). ‘Justifications, Excuses, and Skeptical Scenarios.’ In Dorsch, F. and Dutant, J. (eds), The New Evil Demon: New Essays on Knowledge, Justification and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar