Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:28:42.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE EPISTEMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF EVIDENCE YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Sanford C. Goldberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Elsewhere I and others have argued that evidence one should have had can bear on the justification of one's belief, in the form of defeating one's justification. In this paper, I am interested in knowing how evidence one should have had (on the one hand) and one's higher-order evidence (on the other) interact in determinations of the justification of belief. In doing so I aim to address two types of scenario that previous discussions have left open. In one type of scenario, there is a clash between a subject's higher-order evidence and the evidence she should have had: S's higher-order evidence is misleading as to the existence or likely epistemic bearing of further evidence she should have. In the other, while there is further evidence S should have had, this evidence would only have offered additional support for S's belief that p. The picture I offer derives from two “epistemic ceiling” principles linking evidence to justification: one's justification for the belief that p can be no higher than it is on one's total evidence, nor can it be higher than what it would have been had one had all of the evidence one should have had. Together, these two principles entail what I call the doctrine of Epistemic Strict Liability: insofar as one fails to have evidence one should have had, one is epistemically answerable to that evidence whatever reasons one happened to have regarding the likely epistemic bearing of that evidence. I suggest that such a position can account for the battery of intuitions elicited in the full range of cases I will be considering.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Special Issue 4: 2015 Episteme Conference , December 2016 , pp. 449 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Axtell, G. 2011. ‘From Internalist Evidentialism to Virtue Responsibilism.’ In Dougherty, T. (ed.), Evidentialism and Its Discontents, pp. 71–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baehr, J. 2009. ‘Evidentialism, Vice, and Virtue.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78: 545–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker-Hytch, M. and Benton, M. 2015. ‘Defeatism Defeated.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 29: 40–66.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. 2015. ‘The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 65: 315–35.Google Scholar
Battaly, H. 2008. ‘Virtue Epistemology.’ Philosophy Compass, 3: 639–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, M. 2005. ‘Defeaters and Higher-Level Requirements.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 419–36.Google Scholar
Cloos, C. 2015. ‘Responsibilist Evidentialism.’ Philosophical Studies, 172: 2999–3016.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 2000. ‘Ought We to Follow Our Evidence?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60: 697–706.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2000. ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60: 667–95.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2003. ‘Plantinga on Exclusivism.’ Faith and Philosophy, 20: 85–90.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. 2006. ‘Access Externalism.’ Mind, 115: 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2001. ‘The Unity of the Epistemic Virtues.’ In Fairweather, A. & Zagzebski, L. (eds), Virtue Epistemology. Essays in Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility, pp. 30–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. Forthcoming. ‘Should Have Known.’ Synthese.Google Scholar
Greco, J. 2005. ‘Justification Is Not Internal.’ In Steup, M. & Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 257–70. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1973. Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1980. ‘Reasoning and Evidence One Does Not Possess.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5: 163–82.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H. 1983. ‘Justified Belief and Epistemically Responsible Action.’ Philosophical Review, 92(1): 33–48.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 1999. ‘Testimonial Knowledge and Transmission.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 49: 471–90.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2005. ‘Memory as a Generative Epistemic Source.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70: 636–58.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2010. ‘Unreasonable Knowledge.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24: 1–21.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014a. ‘Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88: 314–45.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014b. ‘The Dogmatism Puzzle.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92: 417–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, W. 1977. ‘Evidence One Does Not Possess.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 55: 114–26.Google Scholar
Meeker, K. 2004. ‘Justification and the Social Nature of Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69: 156–72.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Record, I. 2013. ‘Technology and Epistemic Possibility.’ Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 28: 1–18.Google Scholar
Reed, B. 2006. ‘Epistemic Circularity Squared? Skepticism about Common Sense.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73: 186–97.Google Scholar
White, R. 2006. ‘Problems for Dogmatism.’ Philosophical Studies, 131: 525–57.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 2011. ‘Knowledge and Social Roles: A Virtue Approach.’ Episteme, 8: 99–111.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 2013. ‘A Neo-stoic Approach to Epistemic Agency.’ Philosophical Issues, 23: 262–75.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar