Clayton Littlejohn

It has recently been argued that purported evidential and zetetic norms issue contradictory verdicts and that such contradictions best be resolved in favor of zetetic norms. The paper argues that this line of argument proves unsuccessful. First, natural formulations of what one ought to do if inquiring into a given matter resemble anankastic conditionals that don't allow for detachment of normatively significant verdicts. Second, even if suitably reformulated, zetetic norms issue, at best, verdicts with a distinctly practical flavor that contrasts with the epistemic flavor characteristic of evidential norms. While there are conflicts between normative verdicts of different flavors, the phenomenon is familiar and, in the cases in question, doesn't force a zetetic turn, that is, a reorientation of epistemology that gives zetetic norms precedence over evidential norms.

If we take negativism about epistemic norms to be the view that all epistemic norms can do is prohibit forming or maintaining undesirable beliefs, we agree that the view can seem quite counterintuitive. There are surely situations where it seems right or appropriate to say that someone should believe things that our evidence makes evident. In our discussion, we want to carefully examine the case for positivism about epistemic norms, the thesis that there are epistemic norms that enjoin us to believe things. We argue that the case for epistemic positivism is surprisingly difficult to make given that there is room for someone to argue that the things we ought to believe ought to be believed because of a confluence of epistemic and non-epistemic factors. We identify two ways that an epistemic negativist might explain how there are beliefs we ought to have without capitulating to the epistemic positivists, a hybrid view according to which the beliefs we ought to have are ones we are epistemically permitted to have that we ought to hold owing to non-epistemic reasons to take a stand and an end-relational view according to which the reason we ought to believe might simply be that forming such beliefs makes it likely we achieve some (possibly non-epistemic) end.

What is knowledge? Why is it valuable? How much of it do we have (if any at all), and what ways of thinking are good ways to use to get more of it? These are just a few questions that are asked in epistemology, roughly, the philosophical theory of knowledge. This is Epistemology is a comprehensive introduction to the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and scope of human knowledge. Exploring both classic debates and contemporary issues in epistemology, this rigorous yet accessible textbook provides readers with the foundation necessary to start doing epistemology. Organized around 11 key subtopics, and assuming no prior knowledge of the subject, this volume exposes readers to diverse, often contentious perspectives—guiding readers through crucial debates including Hume’s problem of induction, Descartes’ engagement with radical skepticism, rationalist and empiricist evaluations of a priori justification, and many more. The authors avoid complex technical terms and jargon in favor of an easy-to-follow, informal writing style with engaging chapters designed to stimulate student interest and encourage class discussion. Throughout the text, a wealth of up-to-date references and links to online resources are provided to enable further investigation of an array of epistemological topics. A balanced and authoritative addition to the acclaimed This is Philosophy series, This is Epistemology is a perfect primary textbook for philosophy undergraduates, and a valuable resource for general readers with interest in this important branch of philosophy.

According to a recent account of disinformation, disinformation is content that “generates ignorance” (Simion in Eur Rev 32(4):321–34, 2024a; Episteme 21(4):1208–1219, 2024b). The view improves upon previous accounts that focused primarily or exclusively upon the potential for disinformation to induce false belief since these views ignored a further functional connection to inducing doubts that generate ignorance. While this proposal gives us a broader understanding of what disinformation can be, it retains the idea that disinformation functions as evidence that provides incremental confirmation for falsehoods. Thus, this approach implies (in line with previous views) that disinformants need to capture the attention of agents, present these agents with content that will be treated as evidence, and hope that this content will change an agent’s belief state in epistemically undesirable ways. Certainly, this is an apt description of some disinformation tactics, but it is not an adequate definition of what disinformation is. In some successful real-world disinformation campaigns, a disinformant wants the audience not to gather and process evidence. In some cases, evidence that provides incremental confirmation for falsehoods will also provide the audience with the knowledge they seek. After arguing that there are documented disinformation tactics and campaigns that don’t fit with Simion’s approach, I shall offer an alternative pragmatic approach. On this view, disinformation can come in the form of evidence that’s misleading in ways that the agent doesn’t see, but it can also come in the form of content that makes it evident that the evidential resources the agent might need to advance her inquiries is corrupted. Rather than think of disinformation as essentially epistemic (e.g., functioning to increase the inaccuracy of attitudes), we should see it as essentially pragmatic, used by disinformants to minimise the probability that agents pursuing threatening ends will succeed in their efforts. In the special case (which is our focus here) where a disinformant is threatened by an agent’s inquiry, it is content that’s used to minimize the probability that the inquisitive agent achieves her ends by coming to know the answers to questions. This includes both misleading first-order evidence to lead agents away from the truth, but also accurate higher-order evidence that confirms that evidential resources have been degraded.

It has recently been argued that purported evidential and zetetic norms issue contradictory verdicts and that such contradictions best be resolved in favor of zetetic norms. The paper argues that this line of argument proves unsuccessful. First, natural formulations of what one ought to do if inquiring into a given matter resemble anankastic conditionals that don't allow for detachment of normatively significant verdicts. Second, even if suitably reformulated, zetetic norms issue, at best, verdicts with a distinctly practical flavor that contrasts with the epistemic flavor characteristic of evidential norms. While there are conflicts between normative verdicts of different flavors, the phenomenon is familiar and, in the cases in question, doesn't force a zetetic turn, that is, a reorientation of epistemology that gives zetetic norms precedence over evidential norms.

Littlejohn considers and criticizes the value theory that underlies epistemic consequentialism. He first casts doubt on _veritism_, the view according to which accuracy and only accuracy is the final epistemic good. One might think that the consequentialist is unscathed by this: simply put in something else as the epistemic good. But Littlejohn argues that this fails, too. For whatever it is that the consequentialist says is the epistemic good, she cannot make sense of why such a good should be promoted.

There are powerful and compelling arguments that seem to show that it is _prima facie_ wrong to harm animals. There are also powerful and compelling arguments that seem to show that it’s possible for someone to consume meat on a regular basis without harming any animals. Can someone who cares about animal welfare eat animals with a clean conscience? This chapter looks at consequentialist and non-consequentialist responses to the potency problem (i.e. the problem that one’s actions don’t seem to have the right causal impact for one to have any responsibility to refrain from eating meat) and argue that non-consequentialists have the resources for addressing this problem.

Cases of reasonable, mistaken belief figure prominently in discussions of the knowledge norm of assertion and practical reason as putative counterexamples to these norms. These cases are supposed to show that the knowledge norm is too demanding and that some weaker norm (e.g., a justification or reasonable belief norm) ought to be put in its place. These cases don’t show what they’re intended to. When you assert something false or treat some falsehood as if it’s a reason for action, you might deserve an excuse. You often don’t deserve even that.

According to a recent account of disinformation, disinformation is content that “generates ignorance” (Simion 2024a; 2024b). The view improves upon previous accounts that focused upon the potential for disinformation to induce false belief, overlooking its role in generating ignorance by inducing doubt. While this proposal gives us a broader understanding of what disinformation can be, it retains the idea that disinformation functions as evidence that incrementally confirms falsehoods. Thus, this approach implies (in line with previous views) that when disinformation is used intentionally, the disinformant hopes to capture the attention of agents and induce these agents to process this content as evidence to change an agent's belief state in epistemically undesirable ways. Certainly, this is true of some disinformation tactics, but it won't give us an adequate definition. In some successful real-world disinformation campaigns, disinformants add to the available content to deter the audience from attending to and processing evidence. In some cases, evidence can incrementally confirm a falsehood while providing knowledge of its negation. I propose an alternative pragmatic view that explains this. On this view, disinformation can come in the form of misleading evidence, but it can also come in the form of content that makes it evident that the evidential resources the agent needs to advance inquiry have been corrupted. This content functions as disinformation because it rationalises decisions that can protect a disinformant’s interests instead of promoting the inquirer’s interests. Instead of thinking of disinformation in epistemic terms (e.g., evidence that’s misleading), we should see it as fundamentally pragmatic. In the special case where a disinformant wants to influence another agent's inquiries, disinformation is content that’s used to minimise the probability that the inquisitive agent successfully draws conclusions that threaten the disinformant's interests. This includes misleading first-order evidence that leads agents away from the truth (per Simion's account), but it also includes non-misleading higher-order evidence that accurately shows evidential resources are corrupted, functioning as a deterrent that rationalises withdrawing from dangerous lines of inquiry.

In this paper, I discuss Silva's work on factual awareness. He argues that factual awareness can help us acquire knowledge. This position is appealing to many of us who think of reasons as consisting of facts and think of factual knowledge as being a belief that's based on good reasons. One potential problem for this view, however, is that it's been argued that factual awareness just is knowledge (albeit under a different description). It might seem that there's a potential modal difference between factual awareness and factual knowledge (e.g., it might seem that there's visual awareness of facts and that this kind of factual awareness doesn't require the kinds of modal tie to the facts needed for knowledge) but I shall argue that initial appearances are misleading and that knowledge of and awareness of facts have the same modal requirements. Whilst there are no modal conditions necessary for us to have perceptual awareness of things in our surroundings, there are modal conditions that must be met for factual awareness, so it turns out that factual awareness is quite likely just knowledge and factual awareness does not supervene upon the perceptual relations we bear to things in our surroundings.

In this paper, I present a puzzle about epistemic rationality. It seems plausible that it should be rational to believe a proposition if you have sufficient evidential support for it. It seems plausible that it rationality requires you to conform to the categorical requirements of rationality. It also seems plausible that our first‐order attitudes ought to mesh with our higher‐order attitudes. It seems unfortunate that we cannot accept all three claims about rationality. I will present three ways of trying to resolve this tension and argue that the best way to do this is to reject the idea that strong evidential support is the stuff rationality is made of. In the course of doing this, I shall argue that there is a special class of propositions about the requirements of rationality that we cannot make rational mistakes about and explain how this can be.

In this paper, I want to discuss a problem that arises when we try to understand the connections between justification, knowledge, and suspension. The problem arises because some prima facie plausible claims about knowledge and the justification for judging and suspending are difficult to reconcile with the possibility of a kind of knowledge or apt belief that a thinker cannot aptly judge to be within her reach. I shall argue that if we try (as we should) to accommodate the possibility of this kind of knowledge, we should reject a widely held view about justification. We can correct this mistaken view about the connection between justification and knowledge by connecting justification to a kind of competence, but not the one we might have expected. In the course of this discussion, I shall flag some questions about the explanatory ambitions of the telic virtue-theoretic approach.

Could it be right to convict and punish defendants using only statistical evidence? In this paper, I argue that it is not and explain why it would be wrong. This is difficult to do because there is a powerful argument for thinking that we should convict and punish defendants using statistical evidence. It looks as if the relevant cases are cases of decision under risk and it seems we know what we should do in such cases (i.e., maximize expected value). Given some standard assumptions about the values at stake, the case for convicting and punishing using statistical evidence seems solid. In trying to show where this argument goes wrong, I shall argue (against Lockeans, reliabilists, and others) that beliefs supported only by statistical evidence are epistemically defective and (against Enoch, Fisher, and Spectre) that these epistemic considerations should matter to the law. To solve the puzzle about the role of statistical evidence in the law, we need to revise some commonly held assumptions about epistemic value and defend the relevance of epistemology to this practical question.

How should we understand the notion of sufficient evidence? How should we deal with the worry that any attempt to use a threshold of support to characterise this notion would be arbitrary? In this paper, I argue that the most familiar way of understanding a threshold is unworkable but also argue that it would be misguided to do away with a threshold-centred account. I argue that we should approach sufficiency in the theoretical realm much in the way that we would in the practical realm where we could, if we wished, say that the evidence for choosing some option is sufficient when given this information this option is no less choiceworthy than its alternatives. Applied to belief, the idea would be that the evidence is sufficient when the expected epistemic desirability of belief is not less than that of suspension. Whilst we might have to acknowledge that the precise weights of reasons that bear on whether to believe are unknowable (making the threshold unknowable), the mechanism that determines a threshold is known and clearly non-arbitrary. The paper concludes with some reflections on why this comparativist approach has been overlooked by epistemologists and reflections on the normative significance of naked statistical evidence. Contrary to an increasingly popular view, I think that naked statistical evidence can both confer justification upon a belief and defeat the justification a belief has, but only if it's evidence _of_ the properties that make belief desirable or undesirable. Whilst naked statistical evidence of truth will not make it rational to believe, this is not because naked statistical evidence is normatively irrelevant but because it is evidence that indicates that only one aspect of desirable belief might be present. Any evidence that warrants a high degree of confidence that a belief is knowledge will make it rational to believe and this includes naked statistical evidence of the properties that turn a belief into knowledge. I also argue that it is an objection to nearly every extant theory of justification that they recognise the factors that determine the threshold I discuss in this paper since these theories invariably treat the threshold as normatively irrelevant. Bad on them. The real threshold problem is not (contrary to prevailing opinion) the problem of explaining how it might be non-arbitrary (that's easily solved), but rather the problem of explaining why a rational thinker should prefer belief to suspension when belief does not cross the threshold or suspension to belief when belief does cross the threshold. This is not a problem for my preferred theory of rational belief or the Lockean view, but it is a problem for virtually every other theory of rational belief on the market.

What can we learn from cases of knowledge from falsehood? Critics of knowledge-first epistemology have argued that these cases provide us with good reason for rejecting the knowledge accounts of evidence, justification, and the norm of belief. I shall offer a limited defense of the knowledge-first approach to these matters. Knowledge from falsehood cases should undermine our confidence in like-from-like reasoning in epistemology. Just as we should be open to the idea that knowledge can come from non-knowledge, we should be open to the idea that justified beliefs can come from unjustified beliefs.

Evidence is one of the most fundamental notions in the field of epistemology and is emerging as a major topic across academic disciplines. The practice of every academic discipline consists largely in providing evidence for key theses and The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the Philosophy of Evidence, the first collection of its kind, is an outstanding reference source to the key topics, problems and debates in this exciting subject. Comprising over forty chapters by a team of international contributors the Handbook is divided into six parts: Ontology of evidence Sources of evidence Evidence and normativity Evidence and probability Social epistemology of evidence Evidence in the disciplines. Within these sections central issues, debates and problems are examined. Questions covered include: What is evidence? What is the relationship between knowledge and evidence? Is a pluralism of evidence possible? What other sources of evidence are there in addition to perception? Is what a person ought to believe completely fixed by the totality of evidence they have, or does it also depend on other factors like practical interests? Can evidential force be measured in any well-behaved way? How do socially created biases - for instance, gender biases - affect evidence-gathering? How is evidence relevant within different academic disciplines? The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of the Philosophy of Evidence is essential reading for students and researchers in philosophy of science and epistemology and related disciplines such as law, religion, history and the social sciences.

Must rational thinkers have consistent sets of beliefs? I shall argue that it can be rational for a thinker to believe a set of propositions known to be inconsistent. If this is right, an important test for a theory of rational belief is that it allows for the right kinds of inconsistency. One problem we face in trying to resolve disagreements about putative rational requirements is that parties to the disagreement might be working with different conceptions of the relevant attitudes. My aim is modest. I hope to show that there is at least one important notion of belief such that a thinker might rationally hold a collection of beliefs (so understood) even when the thinker knows their contents entail a contradiction.

There has been considerable discussion recently of consequentialist justifications of epistemic norms. In this paper, I shall argue that these justifications are not justifications. The consequentialist needs a value theory, a theory of the epistemic good. The standard theory treats accuracy as the fundamental epistemic good and assumes that it is a good that calls for promotion. Both claims are mistaken. The fundamental epistemic good involves accuracy, but it involves more than just that. The fundamental epistemic good is knowledge, not mere true belief, because the goodness of an epistemic state is connected to that state's ability to give us reasons. If I'm right about the value theory, this has a number of significant implications for the consequentialist project. First, the good-making features that attach to valuable full beliefs are not features of partial belief. The resulting value theory does not give us the values we need to give consequentialist justifications of credal norms. Second, the relevant kind of good does not call for promotion. It is good to know, but the rational standing of a belief is not determined by the belief's location in a ranked set of options. In the paper's final section, I explain why the present view is a kind of teleological non-consequentialism. There is a kind of good that is prior to the right, but as the relevant kind of good does not call for promotion the value theory shows us what is wrong with the consequentialist project.

In this discussion, we look at three potential problems that arise for Whiting’s account of normative reasons. The first has to do with the idea that objective reasons might have a modal dimension. The second and third concern the idea that there is some sort of direct connection between sets of reasons and the deliberative ought or the ought of rationality. We can see that we might be better served using credences about reasons (i.e., creasons) to characterise any ought that is distinct from the objective ought than possessed or apparent reasons.

Many philosophers think that given the choice between saving the life of an innocent person and averting any number of minor ailments or inconveniences, it would be better to save the life. How, then, should one compare the risk of an innocent person’s life to such minor ailments and inconveniences? If lives are infinitely more important than insignificant factors then any risk cannot be outweighed, and that is untenable. An alternative approach seems more promising: let the values of such insignificant factors be bounded, as then there will be well-behaved tradeoffs between insignificant things and the risk to an innocent life. We argue, however, that bounding the values of insignificant factors poses myriad problems.

In this paper, I present a puzzle about epistemic rationality. It seems plausible that it should be rational to believe a proposition if you have sufficient evidential support for it. It seems plausible that it rationality requires you to conform to the categorical requirements of rationality. It also seems plausible that our first-order attitudes ought to mesh with our higher-order attitudes. It seems unfortunate that we cannot accept all three claims about rationality. I will present three ways of trying to resolve this tension and argue that the best way to do this is to reject the idea that strong evidential support is the stuff rationality is made of. In the course of doing this, I shall argue that there is a special class of propositions about the requirements of rationality that we cannot make rational mistakes about and explain how this can be.

We examine two leading theories of rational belief, the Lockean view and the explanationist view. The first is appealing because it fits with some independently plausible claims about the ways that rational persons pursue their aims. The second is appealing because it seems to account for intuitions that cause trouble for the Lockean view. While fitting the intuitive data is desirable, we are troubled that the explanationist view seems to clash with our theoretical beliefs about what rationality must be like. We think that upon further examination, the intuitive appeal of the explanationist view starts to diminish. We also think that these further intuitions that spell trouble for the explanationist spell trouble for any theory that is not expectationist. We propose a novel expectationist theory of rational belief that improves upon the Lockean and the explanationist views. We think that recent defences of the Lockean view contain an important insight. A substantive theory of rational response should be based on a suitable theory of prizes and a suitable theory of how we should pursue prizes in the face of uncertainty. Most theories of rational belief typically take for granted a truth-centred picture of epistemic prizes (e.g., that epistemic desirability and undesirability can be fully understood in terms of accuracy) and then differ in terms of how they recommend pursuing prizes so understood. We think the Lockeans embrace plausible principles of how prizes should be pursued. We trace the difficulties that this view faces to veritistic assumptions about prizes. We suggest that some prizes are epistemically loaded in that a complete description of the prize will itself make reference to our epistemic states or standards. We argue that knowledge matters to rational belief and choice because in the epistemic domain, knowledge is the prize. We see this in practical domains, too. In some choice settings, what's desired is desired, in part, because it involves a kind of connection to reality only knowledge provides.

A theory of rational belief should get the cases right. It should also reach its verdicts using the right theoretical assumptions. Leading theories seem to predict the wrong things. With only one exception, they don't accommodate principles that we should use to explain these verdicts. We offer a theory of rational belief that combines an attractive picture of epistemic desirability with plausible principles connecting desirability to rationality. On our view, it's rational to believe when it's sufficiently likely that you'd know because believing when it's sufficiently likely that you'd know minimises expected objective epistemic undesirability.

I argue that justification isn't just in the head. The argument is simple. We should be guided by our beliefs. We shouldn't be guided by anything to do what we shouldn't do. So, we shouldn't believe in ways that would guide us to do the things that we shouldn't. Among the various things we should do is discharge our duties (e.g., to fulfil our promissory obligations) and respect the rights of others (e.g., rights not to be harmed or killed by agents acting on bad information). The grounds of our duties and obligations aren't just in the head. Thus, the conditions that bear on the justification of our beliefs cannot be contained wholly in our heads. The internalist might be right about aspects of normativity, but their theories tell us important normative truths without telling us the whole truth. In addition to norms that tell us how to process information, there are norms that tell us how we ought to live together. In information-asymmetry cases, these norms clearly come apart. Important normative questions about what we should do when agents (who, we might suppose, do what they subjectively ought to do) have interests that come into conflict can only be answered by externalist theories that recognise information-transcendent norms and normatively significant relations that don't supervene upon the information of any agent in particular. The internalist picture turns out to be disturbing precisely because it falls silent when we're faced with questions about how to resolve these conflicts. Resolving these conflicts should be a pressing concern for every normative theory.

While we often assume that we can only know what is so, it's clear that we often speak as if we know things that aren't strictly speaking true. What should we make of this? Some would argue that we should take this talk as evidence that it's possible to know things that are strictly speaking false when, say, false representations are adequate for our purposes. I shall argue that it would be better on the whole to say (a) that knowledge ascriptions might be false but felicitous when the ascription relates a thinker to a falsehood than to say (b) that the ascriptions are strictly true. First, it seems that the arguments for thinking that we can know falsehoods overgeneralise (e.g., they don't just threaten the factivity of knowledge-ascriptions but also of claims about what's true or what's a fact). Thus, the motivation for abandoning the traditional view is problematic. Second, it seems that the alternative picture inherits the problems that contextualists face in understanding how knowledge might be normative for assertion and belief.

In this paper, I want to discuss a problem that arises when we try to understand the connections between justification, knowledge, and suspension. The problem arises because some prima facie plausible claims about knowledge and the justification for judging and suspending are difficult to reconcile with the possibility of a kind of knowledge or apt belief that a thinker cannot aptly judge to be within her reach. I shall argue that if we try to accommodate the possibility of this kind of knowledge, we should reject a widely held view about justification. We can correct this mistaken view about the connection between justification and knowledge by connecting justification to a kind of competence, but not the one we might have expected. In the course of this discussion, I shall flag some questions about the explanatory ambitions of the telic virtue-theoretic approach

We argue that there is nothing that can do the work that normative reasons are expected to do. A currently popular view is that in any given situation, a set of normative reasons (understood as a set of facts, typically about the agent’s situation) always determines the ways we prospectively should or should not respond. We discuss an example that we think shows no such collection of facts could have this normative significance. A radical response might be to dispense with reasons and explain the facts about the ways we should respond using something else entirely (e.g., expected value). We think a more fruitful approach is to explore the possibility of using decision-theoretic tools in a reasons-centred framework.

In Fallibilism: Evidence and Knowledge, Jessica Brown identifies a number of problems for the so-called knowledge view of justification. According to this view, we cannot justifiably believe what we do not know. Most epistemologists reject this view on the grounds that false beliefs can be justified if, say, supported by the evidence or produced by reliable processes. We think this is a mistake and that many epistemologists are classifying beliefs as justified because they have properties that indicate that something should be excused. Brown thinks that previous attempts to make this case have been unsuccessful. While the difficulties Brown points to are genuine, I think they show that attempts to explain a classificatory judgment haven't been successful. Still, I would argue that the classification is correct. We need a better explanation of this classificatory judgment. I will try to clarify the justification-excuse distinction and explain why it's a mistake to insist that beliefs that violate epistemic norms might be justified. Just as it's possible for a rational agent to act without justification in spite of her best intentions, it's possible that a rational thinker who follows the evidence and meets our expectations might nevertheless believe without sufficient justification. If our justified beliefs are supposed to guide us in deciding what to do, we probably should draw on discussions from morality and the law about the justification/excuse distinction to inform our understanding of the epistemic case.