Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:48:50.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BOTTOM UP JUSTIFICATION, ASYMMETRIC EPISTEMIC PUSH, AND THE FRAGILITY OF HIGHER ORDER JUSTIFICATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2017

Klemens Kappel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When a first order belief accurately reflects the evidence, how should this affect the epistemic justification of a higher order belief that this is the case? In an influential paper, Kelly argues that first order evidential accuracy tends to generate more justified higher order beliefs (Kelly 2010). Call this Bottom Up. I argue that neither general views about what justifies our higher order beliefs nor the specific arguments that Kelly offers support Bottom Up. Second, I suggest that while we can reject Bottom Up, we can still accept that justified higher order beliefs significantly affect the justification of first order beliefs. Third, I argue that the epistemic justification of higher order belief is fragile in the sense that it tends to dissipate when a subject is confronted with certain defeaters, including notably the sort of defeaters arising from disagreement, precisely when higher order justification depends on first order success in the ways that one may think support Bottom Up.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 119 - 138
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Christensen, D. 2007. ‘Does Murphy's Law Apply to Epistemology? Self-Doubt and Rational Ideals.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 2: 3–31.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2011. ‘Disagreement, Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism.’ Philosophers Imprint, 11(6). www.philosophersimprint.org/011006/.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2013. ‘Epistemic Modesty Defended.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 77–97. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. 2014. ‘Epistemic Akrasia.’ Noûs, 48(4): 718–44. doi: 10.1111/nous.12026.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2010. ‘Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. A. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 111–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2013. ‘Disagreement and the Burdens of Judgment.’ In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, pp. 31–53. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010. ‘A Justificationist View of Disagreement's Epistemic Significance.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 298–325. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. 2014. ‘Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(2): 314–45.Google Scholar
Sliwa, P. and Horowitz, S. 2015. ‘Respecting All the Evidence.’ Philosophical Studies, 172(11): 2835–58.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2010. ‘The Epistemology of Disagreement.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 278–97. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. 2013. ‘Rationality's Fixed Point (or: In Defense of Right Reason).’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5: 253–94.Google Scholar
Weatherson, B. ms. Normative Externalism.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. 2015. ‘The Conflict of Evidence and Coherence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12246.Google Scholar