Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:21:01.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JUSTIFIED GROUP BELIEF IS EVIDENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE GROUP BELIEF

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

Paul Silva Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What conditions must be satisfied if a group is to count as having a justified belief? Jennifer Lackey (2016) has recently argued that any adequate account of group justification must be sensitive (in certain ways) to both the evidence actually possessed by enough of a group's operative members as well as the evidence those members should have possessed. I first draw attention to a range of objections to Lackey's specific view of group justification and a range of concrete case intuitions any plausible view of group justification must explain. I then offer an alternative view of group justification where the basic idea is that group justification is a matter of groups responsibly responding to their total evidence. This view both avoids the problems facing Lackey's account and also explains the relevant concrete case intuitions.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 262 - 281
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

Armstrong, D. 1973. Belief, Truth, and Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, A. 2014. ‘When is There a Group that Knows? Scientific Knowledge as Social Knowledge.’ In Lackey, J. (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, pp. 42–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1989. ‘Belief and Acceptance.’ Mind, 98: 367–89.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1987. ‘Modelling Collective Belief.’ Synthese, 73: 185–204.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1989. On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. and Pilchman, D. 2014. ‘Belief, Acceptance, and What Happens in Groups.’ In Lackey, J. (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, pp. 189–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. Forthcoming a. ‘On the Epistemic Significance of Evidence You Should Have Had.’ Episteme.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. Forthcoming b. ‘Should Have Known.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2009. ‘The Architecture of Justification.’ Journal of Philosophy, 106: 309–38.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2012. Reliabilism and Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. 2014. ‘Social Process Reliabilism: Solving Justification Problems in Collective Epistemology.’ In Lackey, J. (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, pp. 11–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kallestrup, J. Forthcoming. ‘Group Virtue Epistemology.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2016. ‘What is Justified Group Belief?’ Philosophical Review, 125: 341–96.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2011. Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millar, A. 1991. Reasons and Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neta, R. MS. ‘Basing is Conjuring.’ University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Quinton, A. 1975. ‘Social Objects.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76: 1–27.Google Scholar
Schmitt, F. F. (ed.) 1994. ‘The Justification of Group Beliefs.’ In Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, pp. 257–87. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Silva, P. 2015. ‘On Doxastic Justification and Properly Basing One's Beliefs.’ Erkenntnis, 80: 945–55.Google Scholar
Silva, P. 2017. ‘How Doxastic Justification Helps Us Solve the Puzzle of Misleading Higher-Order Evidence.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98(S1): 308–28.Google Scholar
Silva, P. and Keller, K. Forthcoming. ‘Justification: Propositional, Doxastic, and Personal.’ In Lasonen-Aarnio, M., Dougherty, T. and Littlejohn, C. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. 2015. ‘Ideal Rationality and Logical Omniscience.’ Synthese, 192: 2769–93.Google Scholar
Sylvan, K. and Lord, E. Forthcoming. ‘Believing for Normative Reasons: Prime, Not Composite.’ In Bondy, P. and Carter, J. A. (eds) Well-Founded Belief: New Essays on the Epistemic Basing Relation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1988. ‘Alston’ s Internalistic Externalism.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 461–473.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1995. The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2004. ‘Group Knowledge Analyzed.’ Episteme, 1: 109–27.Google Scholar
Turri, J. 2010. ‘On the Relationship Between Propositional and Doxastic Justification.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80: 312–26.Google Scholar
Turri, J. 2011. ‘Believing For a Reason.’ Erkenntnis, 74: 383–97.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2012. ‘Outright Belief.’ Dialectica, 66: 309–29.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2014. ‘Rationality as a Virtue.’ Analytic Philosophy, 55: 319–38.Google Scholar
Weisberg, J. 2016. ‘Belief in Psyontology.’ Philosopher's Imprint.Google Scholar