Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:32:54.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVIDENCE, COHERENCE AND EPISTEMIC AKRASIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

Ram Neta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rationality is generally thought to constrain our beliefs in at least two ways. First, rationality constrains the structure of our beliefs – it prohibits various forms of incoherence among our beliefs, at least at a time, and perhaps over time as well. Second, rationality constraints the substance of our beliefs – it requires them to be appropriate to the evidence that we possess. Several philosophers have argued that the demands of coherence sometimes come into conflict with the demands of evidence: in such cases, an agent who believes in accordance with her evidence will end up displaying epistemic akrasia. In this paper, I show that the arguments that have so far been given for this conclusion are unsuccessful. We have no good reason to think that coherence and evidence can ever be in conflict.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Special Issue 3: 2017 Episteme Conference , September 2018 , pp. 313 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

REFERENCES

Coates, A. 2012. ‘Rational Epistemic Akrasia.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 113–24.Google Scholar
Haack, S. 1993. Evidence and Inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. 2014. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ Noûs, 48: 718–44.Google Scholar
Kolodny, N. 2005. ‘Why Be Rational?’ Mind, 114: 509–63.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. Forthcoming. ‘Enkrasia or Evidentialism? Learning How to Love Mismatch.’ Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. 1974. Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, E. 2018. The Importance of Being Rational. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. 2014. ‘Chalmers Frontloading Argument for Generalized A Priori Scrutability.’ Analysis, 74: 651–61.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. 2012. ‘Ideal Rationality and Logical Omniscience.’ Synthese, 192: 2769–93.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. 2010. ‘Not Enough There There: Evidence, Reasons, and Language Independence.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 477–528.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. 2015. ‘Rationality Fixed Point.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 253–94.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2008. ‘Deontology and Descartes’ Demon.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105: 540–69.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2011. ‘Improbable Knowing.’ In Dougherty, T. (ed.), Evidentialism and its Discontents, pp. 147–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. 2015. ‘The Conflict of Evidence and Coherence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1–42. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12246.Google Scholar