Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 3, pp 673–691 | Cite as

Teleological epistemology

  • Jane FriedmanEmail author
Article
First Online:
  • 336 Downloads

Abstract

It is typically thought that some epistemic states are valuable—knowing, truly or accurately believing, understanding (to name a few). These are states it’s thought good to be in and it’s also said that we aim or want to be in them. It is then sometimes claimed that these sorts of thoughts about epistemic goods or values ground or explain our epistemic norms. For instance, we think subjects should follow their evidence when they form their beliefs. But why should they? Why not believe against the evidence or ignore it completely in deciding what to believe? Here’s a compelling sort of answer: because epistemic subjects are or ought to be trying to know more and following their evidence is a means to that end or to fulfilling that obligation. In this paper I argue that this compelling thought cannot be right. Subjects who are trying to know more will regularly fail to conform to some of our most familiar epistemic norms.

Keywords

Epistemology Epistemic consequentialism Epistemic instrumentalism Epistemic normativity Teleology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ahlstrom-Vij, K., & Dunn, J. (2014). A defence of epistemic consequentialism. Philosophical Quarterly, 64(257), 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berker, S. (2013a). Epistemic teleology and the separateness of propositions. Philosophical Review, 122(3), 337–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berker, S. (2013b). The rejection of epistemic consequentialism. Philosophical Issues, 23(1), 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowie, C. (2014). In defence of instrumentalism about epistemic normativity. Synthese, 191(16), 4003–4017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. David, M. (2001). Truth as the epistemic goal. In M. Steup (Ed.), Knowledge, truth, and duty (pp. 151–169). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn, J., & Ahlstrom-Vij, K. (forthcoming). Epistemic consequentialism. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/epistemic-consequentialism-9780198779681?cc=us&lang=en&#.
  7. Feldman, R. (2000). The ethics of belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60, 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Firth, R. (1981). Epistemic merit, intrinsic and instrumental. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 55(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foley, R. (1987). The theory of epistemic rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grimm, S. (2008). Epistemic goals and epistemic values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77(3), 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grimm, S. (2009). Epistemic normativity. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Epistemic value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. James, W. (1896). The will to believe. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, J. M. (1998). A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism. Philosophy of Science, 65(4), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly, T. (2003). Epistemic rationality as instrumental rationality: A critique. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66(3), 612–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kolodny, N. (2005). Why be rational? Mind, 114(455), 509–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kornblith, H. (1993). Epistemic normativity. Synthese, 94(3), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leite, A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Percival, P. (2002). Epistemic consequentialism. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 76(1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharadin, N. (2016). Epistemic instrumentalism and the reason to believe in accord with the evidence. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1245-3.Google Scholar
  20. Steglich-Petersen, A. (2011). How to be a teleologist about epistemic reasons. In A. Resiner & A. Steglich-Peterson (Eds.), Reasons for belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Street, S. (2009). Evolution and the normativity of epistemic reasons. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39, 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Talbot, B. (2014). Truth promoting non-evidential reasons for belief. Philosophical Studies, 168(3), 599–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options