The relational foundations of epistemic normativity

Epistemic instrumentalism (EI) views epistemic norms and epistemic normativity as essentially involving the instrumental relation between means and ends. It construes notions like epistemic normativity, norms, and rationality, as forms of instrumental or means-end normativity, norms, and rationality. I do two main things in this paper. In part 1, I argue that there is an under-appreciated distinction between two independent types of epistemic instrumentalism. These are instrumentalism about epistemic norms (norm-EI) and instrumentalism about epistemic normativity (source-EI). In part 2, I argue that this under-appreciated distinction matters for the debate surrounding the plausibility of EI. Specifically, whether we interpret EI as norm-EI or as source-EI matters (i) for the widely discussed universality or categoricity objection to EI, and (ii) for two important motivations for adopting EI, namely naturalism and the practical utility of epistemic norms. I will then conclude by drawing some lessons for epistemic instrumentalism going forward.

There exists a family of views concerning the foundations of epistemic normativity that all travel under the heading “epistemic instrumentalism”. These views are unified by their attempt to explain epistemic normativity in terms of instrumental normativity. Very roughly, they all say that we have reason to respond to truth-related considerations when forming and maintaining doxastic attitudes since regulating our doxastic attitudes in this way helps us satisfy our aims, interests, or goals. Thus, according to epistemic instrumentalists, truth-related considerations constitute reasons for belief, but they only do so because regulating our beliefs on their basis is an effective way to satisfy our ends. I will first try to clarify the question that epistemic instrumentalism is supposed to answer. I will then identify a plausible normative commitment and show that the main varieties of epistemic instrumentalism fail to vindicate it. I will conclude by arguing that this provides us with prima facie grounds for rejecting epistemic instrumentalism.

We are bombarded with epistemic norms. Respect your evidence. Don’t believe in contradictions. Don’t arbitrarily change beliefs. But how do such norms get their normative force? Why should we respect our evidence, for example?  In this paper I offer a familiar type of answer, epistemic instrumentalism. Epistemic instrumentalism holds that epistemic norms get their normative force by being useful. You should respect your evidence because it will help you achieve some valuable ends. This answer, while familiar, is not very popular. There is a widely accepted objection to epistemic instrumentalism, the too few reasons objection. The objection looms so large that standard developments of instrumentalism have become bloated with philosophical machinery to respond to it. This does a disservice to epistemic instrumentalism. Rather than focusing completely on the objection, I focus on describing a simple model for how conforming to the epistemic norms is broadly useful. Once I describe the simple model, the too few reasons objection becomes much easier to answer. This strategy results in a well-motivated philosophical theory based on uncontroversial facts that has many advantages over rival theories.   

This article aims to solve a puzzle for instrumental conceptions of epistemic normativity. The puzzle is this: If the usefulness of epistemic norms explains their normative grip on us, why does it seem improper to violate these norms even when doing so would benefit us? To solve this puzzle, we argue that epistemic instrumentalists must adopt a more social approach to normativity. In particular, they should not account for the nature of epistemic norms by appealing to the goals of individual agents. Rather, they should appeal to norms or rules of inquiry that serve our collective goals. We argue that epistemic normativity grows out of our need to promote a deep kind of coordination in our basic epistemic practices. By subscribing to an appropriate system of norms, we can coordinate epistemic rule‐following across the community. This makes testimony more trustworthy and reliable. This account not only solves a puzzle about epistemic instrumentalism but also sheds new light on the foundations of normativity and emphasizes the need for a truly social epistemology.

One of the metaepistemology’s most central debates revolves around the question of what the source of epistemic normativity is. Epistemic instrumentalism claims that epistemic normativity is a species of means-ends normativity. One of the most prominent objections against epistemic instrumentalism features cases of epistemic indifference: Cases where there’s evidence that p yet believing that p wouldn’t promote any of the agent’s aims, wants, or needs. Still, there’s an epistemic reason for the agent to believe that p and thus epistemic instrumentalism is false. In response, instrumentalists have modified their views in various ways, with new contributions still forthcoming. Here, we investigate a neglected aspect of this debate: Laypeople’s judgements on cases of epistemic indifference. In two studies, we investigated whether laypeople agree with the verdict in cases of epistemic indifference as well as the key ideas behind the more recent instrumentalist replies. Our findings indicate that a significant amount of participants found it hard to buy into the cases of epistemic indifference as Kelly has constructed them. Participants did generally share Kelly’s judgement in cases of epistemic indifference. Lastly, some instrumentalist replies are well suited to explain participants’ judgements that agents ought to believe in cases of epistemic indifference.

Epistemic instrumentalists seek to understand the normativity of epistemic norms on the model of practical instrumental norms governing the relation between aims and means. Non-instrumentalists often object that this commits instrumentalists to implausible epistemic assessments. This chapter argues that this objection presupposes an implausibly strong interpretation of epistemic norms. Once we realize that epistemic norms should be understood in terms of permissibility rather than obligation, and that evidence only occasionally provides normative reasons for belief, an instrumentalist account becomes available that delivers the correct epistemic verdicts. On this account, epistemic permissibility can be understood on the model of the wide-scope instrumental norm for instrumental rationality, while normative evidential reasons for belief can be understood in terms of instrumental transmission.

Inquiry is an aim-directed activity, and as such governed by instrumental normativity. If you have reason to figure out a question, you have reason to take means to figuring it out. Beliefs are governed by epistemic normativity. On a certain pervasive understanding, this means that you are permitted – maybe required – to believe what you have sufficient evidence for. The norms of inquiry and epistemic norms both govern us as agents in pursuit of knowledge and understanding, and, on the surface, they do so in harmony. Recently, however, Jane Friedman (2020, “The Epistemic and the Zetetic.” The Philosophical Review 129: 501–536) has pointed out that they are in tension with each other. In this paper, I aim to resolve this tension by showing that reasons for acts of inquiry – zetetic reasons – and epistemic reasons for belief can both be understood as flowing from the same general normative principle: the transmission principle for instrumental reasons. The resulting account is a version of epistemic instrumentalism that offers an attractive unity between zetetic and epistemic normativity.

Some philosophers object to moral error theory by arguing that there a parity between moral and epistemic normativity. They maintain that moral and epistemic error theory stand or fall together, that epistemic error theory falls, and that moral error theory thus falls too. This paper offers a response to this objection on behalf of moral error theorists. I defend the view that moral and epistemic error theory do not stand or fall together by arguing that moral error theory can be sustained alongside epistemic expressivism. This unusual combination of theories can be underpinned by differences in the foundational norms that guide moral and epistemic inquiry. I conclude that the problem of epistemic normativity fails to show that it is compulsory for us to reject moral error theory.

According to epistemic instrumentalism (EI), epistemic normativity arises from and depends on facts about our ends. On that view, a consideration C is an epistemic reason for a subject S to Φ only if Φ-ing would promote an end that S has. However, according to the Too Few Epistemic Reasons objection, this cannot be correct since there are cases in which, intuitively, C is an epistemic reason for S to Φ even though Φ-ing would not promote any of S’s ends. After clarifying both EI and the Too Few Epistemic Reasons objection, I examine three major instrumentalist replies and argue that none of them is satisfactory. I end by briefly sketching a fourth possible response, which is, I suggest, more promising than the other three.

An interpersonal relationship is a relationship that arises and develops in the process of people’s extensive material and spiritual exchanges. College students, as a special group, not only have the general characteristics of modern young people’s interpersonal communication but also have remarkable characteristics of their own communication. The purpose of this paper is to study how to use intelligent big data to conduct a brief survey and research on the interpersonal relationships of college students so that college students can discover their own problems and establish sound and good interpersonal relationships. This paper proposes data mining based on intelligent big data. Data mining plays an important role in information processing. Data mining includes many algorithms. This paper selects cluster analysis for the need to classify the influencing factors in interpersonal relationships. The cluster analysis algorithm can classify similar information well. The experimental results of this paper show that the most important skills given by the five companies that are considered to be necessary for talents are the interpersonal relationship, self-ability, and academic qualifications. Among them, five companies gave the highest score of 8.9 points to the interpersonal relationship and the lowest score of 8.0 points, with an average of about 8 points, while the scores of their own ability and education were below 8 points. It can be seen that entrepreneurs think that the necessary skills for talents are not academic qualifications and their own abilities but good interpersonal relationships. Therefore, it is very important to establish good interpersonal relationships.

Background: Interpersonal skills help student nurses enhance their teamwork quality, positive attitude, mutual effort in taking care of patients with other team members, and having gratitude for others help them learn how to work as a team. The study assesses the nursing student's perceptions of their interpersonal relationship (IPR) with the healthcare team (HCT) and the challenges faced by them in maintaining IPR in hospital settings. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 202 BSc (Hons) nursing students. The data was collected with a socio-demographic proforma, rating scale and a checklist using a purposive sampling technique. Results: The median age of the participants was 21 (20 and 22) years. Among 202 participants; 74, 72 and 56 participants belong to 2nd, 3rd and 4th year BSc (Hons) nursing respectively. The 20.29% had very good IPR, 43.56% had good, 24.25% had moderate, and 11.88% had low IPR with the HCT. Most of the students perceive that good IPR with HCT helped them to reduce gap between their theoretical knowledge and practical skills (Relative importance index, RII=0.8) There is an association between the level of IPR with seniority of nursing students (χ2-21.523, df=6, p=0.001). The most common challenges faced by student nurses include language differences (84.7%) and lack of respect shown by HCT towards student nurses (80.7%). Conclusions: These findings provide valuable insights for the nursing community, with ultimate goal of improving patient care, promoting teamwork, and cultivating a positive learning environment for nursing students in hospital settings.

Work stress is a discrepancy between the workload and the individual's ability to do their job. Work stress factors that cause work stress are individual, work, and outside the work/environment. There is no data and research about work stress from work factors, mainly focusing on lecturers or universities.Objective. This study aimed to analyze the relationship between work factors in the form of type of faculty, workload, type of professor, and interpersonal relationships with the work stress of lecturers.Material and methods. This research was conducted using a cross-sectional study. The research sample consisted of 100 lecturers with active status selected by quota sampling. Data were collected using a questionnaire filled out online and analyzed using the Chi-square test and the Contingency Coefficient Test.Results. The result showed that most participants had moderate stress (score: 59–92) and moderate workload (score: 50–80). Most of the participants were Associate professors (52%) and had good interpersonal relationships in the workplace (59%). There is a relationship between interpersonal relationships and work stress of lecturers. However, there was no relationship between type of faculty, workload, and type of professor with lecturers' work stress.Conclusion. In conclusion, interpersonal relationships are significantly related to job stress on lecturers. A good interpersonal relationship will reduce the possibility of work stress on the participant.

Zadržavanje zaposlenika aktualan je izazov u ugostiteljskom* sektoru. Svrha ovog rada bila je ispitati koje aspekte vezane za posao zaposlenici u hrvatskom ugostiteljskom sektoru smatraju važnima te postoje li generacijske razlike. Podaci su prikupljeni putem online upitnika provedenim od srpnja do kolovoza 2022. godine i analizirani deskriptivnom analizom. Rezultati pokazuju da generacija X najvažnijim čimbenicima smatra: dobru ravnotežu između poslovnog i privatnog života, plaću i sigurnost radnog mjesta te međuljudske odnose. Za generaciju Y najvažniji su aspekt plaća i sigurnost radnog mjesta, koje prate dobri međuljudski odnosi te dobra ravnoteža između poslovnog i privatnog života. Generacija Z jednako važnima smatra: plaću i sigurnost radnog mjesta, dobre međuljudske odnose i nisku razinu poslovnog stresa. Generacijske razlike su pronađene, ali nisu značajne. Važno je istaknuti zapažanje da sve generacije percipiraju sve čimbenike vrlo važnima. Zaposlenicima je stalo do poštene plaće i korektnih radnih uvjeta, ravnoteže između privatnog i poslovnog života te međuljudskih odnosa, cijene prilike za poslovni razvoj i više autonomije. Rukovoditelji u ugostiteljstvu trebali bi to uzeti u obzir kako bi kreirali visokokvalitetna radna mjesta i poboljšali zadržavanje zaposlenika.

Male participation plays an important role in affecting reproductive health outcomes. Communication between a wife and husband regarding reproductive matters is well recognized as a factor influencing good interpersonal relationships. The objectives of this study were to assess male participation in reproductive health care of women and spousal communications and also to identify factors associated with interpersonal relationship. The present descriptive study was conducted among 104 married women aged 18-49 years in a rural community of Haryana during the months of June and July 2019. Study variables included sociodemographic characteristics, reproductive health characteristics, male participation in reproductive health care of women, and interpersonal communication. Male participation was reported by 72 (69.2%) women with an overall involvement of spouses in antenatal care by 71 (68.3%) women. Joint decisions concerning desired number of children, use of contraceptive, and choice of contraceptive use were reported by 47 (45.2%), 48 (46.2%), and 55 (52.9%) women, respectively. Good interpersonal relationship was reported by 80 (76.9%) women and 67 (64.4%) felt their expectations were fulfilled. Male partners played dominant roles in decisions concerning contraceptive use and place of delivery only. Low socioeconomic status came out to be a significant risk factor of not having good interpersonal relationships (P = 0.02). Male participation in reproductive health care of women was reasonably high. Spouses were having good interpersonal relationships meeting expectations of women. Efforts should be made for increasing male involvement and encouraging better interpersonal communications for attaining desired reproductive health outcomes for women.

본 연구는 치위생과 학생의 비판적 사고성향과 문제해결능력 정도를 측정하고 이들 간의 관계를 규명하기 위해 시도한 연구이다. 2013년 4월에서 5월까지 부산과 울산 지역에 소재하는 3년제 치위생과 학생 649명을 연구대상으로 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 비판적 사고성향은 총 평점 5점 만점에 3.20점이었으며, 1학년, 학업성적이 높은 학생, 대인관계가 좋은 학생, 전공만족도와 임상실습만족도가 높은 학생, 임상실습경험이 없는 학생이 비판적 사고성향이 높았다. 문제해결능력은 총 평점 5점 만점에 3.06점으로 나타났으며, 문제해결능력은 학업성적이 높은 학생, 대인관계가 좋은 학생, 전공만족도와 임상실습만족도가 높은 학생이 높게 나타났다. 학생들의 비판적 사고성향과 문제해결능력도 순 상관관계가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 비판적 사고성향에 영향요인은 문제해결능력, 대인관계, 전공만족이며, 문제해결능력에 영향요인은 비판적 사고성향, 학업성적으로 나타났다. 이와 같이 학업성적이 높은 학생, 대인관계가 좋은 학생, 전공만족도와 임상실습만족도가 높은 학생이, 비판적 사고성향과 문제해결능력이 높은 것으로 나타났다. 그러므로 문제 중심의 학습이나 근거 중심의 치위생과정 등의 다양한 교수학습 전략과 교육과정 개발을 통한 비판적 사고성향과 문제해결능력을 강화시킬 필요가 있다고 본다. This study attempts to measure the critical thinking disposition and problem-solving ability levels of dental hygiene students and to investigate their correlation. A self-administered survey was conducted with respect to dental hygiene students from three-year colleges in Busan, Ulsan and the Gyeongsangbuk-do region between April 2013 and May 2013. A total of 649 surveys were subject to a final analysis. Critical thinking disposition of the dental hygiene students resulted in a score of 3.20 out of a total of 5.0. Freshmen, students with high academic performance results, students with good interpersonal relations, students with a high level of satisfaction regarding major subject and clinical training and students with no clinical training experience showed a high score for critical thinking disposition. Problem-solving ability of the dental hygiene students resulted in a score of 3.06 out of a total of 5.0. Students with high academic performance results, students with good interpersonal relations and students with a high level of satisfaction regarding major subject and clinical training showed a high score for problem-solving ability. It was found that critical thinking disposition and problem-solving ability had a pure correlation. The critical thinking disposition appeared to problem solving, interpersonal relations, major factors affect satisfaction, was a critical thinking disposition, academic factors affect the ability to problem solve. Regarding education for dental hygiene students, the reinforcement of training to increase critical thinking and problem-solving abilities is necessary and the development of an educational curriculum and change in educational environment that can increase interpersonal skills and communication skills is necessary.