This paper is about the epistemology of the requirements of rationality, and how there is nothing particularly special about it. This is a departure from a majority of views on the topic. Many other philosophers have thought that there must be something epistemically exceptional about beliefs about what rationality requires. Either the truth about what rationality requires changes depending on your epistemic situation, or false belief about what rationality requires is impossible. I argue here that the truth is much less exciting – beliefs about requirements of rationality behave much like other more ordinary beliefs. Their subject matter does not change depending on you, and sometimes you can be justified in believing falsely about them.

Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-020-00450-0

Tags: Publication, open access