Skip to main content


  • Claire Field

Can we make mistakes about what rationality requires? A natural answer is that we can, since it is a platitude that rational belief does not require truth; it is possible for a belief to be rational and mistaken, and this holds for any subject matter at all. However, the platitude causes trouble when applied to rationality itself. The possibility of rational mistakes about what rationality requires generates a puzzle. When combined with two further plausible claims – the enkratic principle, and the claim that rational requirements apply universally – we get the result that rationality generates inconsistent requirements. One popular and attractive solution to the puzzle denies that it is possible to make rational mistakes about what rationality requires. I show why (contra Titelbaum (2015b), and Littlejohn (2015)) this solution is doomed to fail.

Corresponding author
Hide All
Adler, J. E. 2002. ‘Akratic Believing?Philosophical Studies, 110: 127.
BonJour, L. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Broome, J. 1999. ‘Normative Requirements.’ Ratio, 12 (4): 398419.
Brown, J. Forthcoming. Fallibilism: Evidence and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brownstein, M. 2014. ‘Rationalizing Flow: Agency in Skilled Unreflective Action.’ Philosophical Studies, 168 (2): 545–68.
Carroll, L. 1895. ‘What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.’ Mind, 4 (14): 278–80.
Christensen, D. 2004. Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief (Vol. 11) , pp. 185215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S. and Comesaña, J. 2013. ‘Williamson on Gettier Cases and Epistemic Logic.’ Inquiry, 56 (1): 1529.
Field, H. 1998. ‘Epistemological Nonfactualism and the A Prioricity of Logic.’ Philosophical Studies, 92 (1/2): 124.
Gibbons, J. 2013. The Norm of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greco, D. 2014. ‘A Puzzle About Epistemic Akrasia.’ Philosophical Studies, 167 (2): 201–19.
Grice, P. 2001. Aspects of Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harman, G. 1986. Change in View. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hawthorne, J. and Bovens, L. 1999. ‘The Preface, The Lottery, and the Logic of Belief.’ Mind, 108 (430): 241–64.
Horowitz, S. 2014. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ Noûs, 48 (4): 718–44.
Ichikawa, J. J. and Jarvis, B. W. 2013. The Rules of Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelp, C. 2016. ‘Justified Belief: Knowledge First-Style.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92 (3): 79–100.
Kolodny, N. 2005. ‘Why be Rational?Mind, 114 (455): 509–63.
Kvanvig, J. L. 2014. Rationality and Reflection: How to Think About What to Think. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014. ‘Higher-order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88 (2): 314–45.
Littlejohn, C. 2015. ‘Stop Making Sense? On a Puzzle about Rationality.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 93 (3): 119.
Littlejohn, C. Forthcoming. ‘A Plea for Epistemic Excuses.’ In Julien Dutant, F. D. (ed.), The New Evil Demon Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macfarlane, J. Ms. ‘In What Sense (if any) is Logic Normative for Thought?’
Montero, B. G. 2016. Thought in Action: Expertise and the Conscious Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Owens, D. 2002. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ The Monist, 85 (3): 381–97.
Reed, N., McLeod, P. and Dienes, Z. 2010. ‘Implicit Knowledge and Motor Skill: What People Who Know How to Catch Don't Know.’ Consciousness and Cognition, 19 (1): 6376.
Smithies, D. 2012. ‘Moore's Paradox and the Accessibility of Justification.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85 (2): 273300.
Sutton, J. 2005. ‘Stick to What you Know.’ Noûs, 39 (3): 359–96.
Sutton, J. 2007. Without Justification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Titelbaum, M. G. 2015a. ‘How to Derive a Narrow-scope Requirement from Wide-scope Requirements.’ Philosophical Studies, 172 (2): 535–42.
Titelbaum, M. G. 2015b. ‘Rationality's Fixed Point (Or: In Defense of Right Reason).’ In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, pp. 253–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. Forthcoming. ‘Justifications, Excuses, and Sceptical Scenarios.’ In Dutant, J. and Dohrn, D. (eds), The New Evil Demon Problem, pp. 1689–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, C. 2004a. ‘Intuition, Entitlement and the Epistemology of Logical Laws.’ Dialectica: International Journal of Philosophy of Knowledge, 58(1): 155–75.
Wright, C. 2004b. ‘On Epistemic Entitlement: Warrant for Nothing?Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 78: 167212.
Wright, C. 2014. ‘On Epistemic Entitlement (II): Welfare State Epistemology.’ In Dodd, D. and Zardini, E. (eds), Scepticism and Perceptual Justification, pp. 213–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 52 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 498 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th August 2017 - 23rd March 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.