Abstract In this article, I present a potential counterexample to Lackey’s Group Agent Account (GAA) of group beliefs. I argue that cases of pluralistic ignorance pose a problem for Lackey’s GAA because, in such cases, it systematically yields the wrong ascriptions of belief. I then discuss two ways to improve GAA, which I call GAA* and GAA**, that make it immune to the pluralistic ignorance problem. However, I argue that GAA* and GAA** face their own problems that cannot be straightforwardly solved without overfitting the account. I conclude by arguing that pluralistic ignorance is not a minor problem but one that generally affects summative approaches, such as GAA, and provides evidence in support of nonsummative accounts of group beliefs.

Abstract Traditionally, many have imposed higher-order requirements on epistemic justification. That is, many have argued that for a belief to be epistemically justified, it not only needs to satisfy first-order requirements, such as being formed via a reliable process or supported by sufficient evidence, but also some higher-order requirement that bears on the way the belief is formed. For example, BonJour has famously argued that a clairvoyance belief, however reliable, is not justified unless one also has a justified belief that one’s beliefs formed via clairvoyance are reliable. More recently, some have argued for higher-order requirements for inferentially justified beliefs. That is, for example, that inferential beliefs are only justified if we take the reasons for which those beliefs are formed to support the belief. While there is a common underlying theme, these proposals differ with respect to the kind of higher-order state they require. Some proposals require (justified) higher-order beliefs, while others require higher-order evidence or higher-order awareness. This paper sets out to systematically discuss different kinds of higher-order requirements and the objections they face. While I will argue that there are good reasons to think that epistemic justification needs a built-in higher-order requirement, I will argue that only so-called evidential requirements are able to guard off well-known objections. In so doing, I will directly build on my previous work on evidentialist no-defeater clauses. In particular, I will demonstrate that such clauses can be understood as general higher-order requirements of epistemic justification.

Abstract Fricker’s influential account of epistemic justice has turned feminist epistemology into one of the most vibrant and fertile subfields in feminist philosophy in recent decades. Even scholars critical of its limitations have utilized Fricker’s account as a base from which to launch their own theories of epistemic justice. I refer to theories of epistemic justice developed or inspired by Fricker Frickerian accounts of epistemic justice (FAEJ). Their influence is so wide-ranging that some now claim that these accounts can be conducive to promoting decoloniality. The aim of this paper is to critically assess this claim. To accomplish this aim, this paper starts with a conceptual clarification of “decoloniality” in accordance with Latin American decolonial theory. It then critically assesses three aspects of the claim that FAEJ can be conducive to decoloniality: first, the types of epistemic injustice in these accounts relevant to decoloniality; second, the application of these types of epistemic injustice to different stages of coloniality; and third, whether FAEJ can advance programs of decoloniality. After demonstrating that FAEJ cannot promote decoloniality, this paper concludes with a brief examination of how decoloniality can be promoted.

Abstract The sensitivity principle in epistemology has faced numerous, considerable, and relentless challenges since it emerged in Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations (1981). In this paper, I develop a version of sensitivity, based on Dretske’s notion of conclusive reasons (1971), that responds to the complaint that sensitivity is either incompatible with or makes an unprincipled mess of higher-level knowledge. There are three key moves in formulating reasons-based Dretskean sensitivity (RDS). First, sensitivity is conceived in terms of reasons, rather than beliefs, that track the truth. Second, focus shifts from whether S would have those reasons in the relevant counterfactual worlds to whether those reasons would be the case. Third, closer attention is paid to the structure of reasons. Critics of Nozick point out that, typically, even when S knows that they do not have a false belief that p, if S were to have a false belief that p, S would nonetheless believe that they do not have a false belief that p, violating Nozickean sensitivity. I explain how this fact does not preclude higher-level knowledge according to RDS, even if the false belief that p were based on their actual method.

Abstract I propose a novel account of epistemic reputation as the social standing of agents, groups, and institutions based on their epistemic profiles within a community. Using a functionalist approach, I argue that epistemic reputation is pervasive in our societies because it facilitates navigation within social epistemic networks. Consequently, it holds significant importance as second-order evidence in testimonial belief formation. This proposal integrates reputation research, which has traditionally been relegated to the periphery of social epistemology, into the core of epistemology of testimony. As a result, we gain a deeper understanding of the burden and epistemic responsibility associated with epistemic injustice. This approach also promises to illuminate the concept of humility for experts in a new light.

Abstract Rationally speaking, receiving testimony from an epistemic authority seems better than receiving testimony from anyone else. But what explains this? According to the Preemptive Reasons View (PRV), the difference is one in kind, i.e., authorities provide you with preemptive reasons, whereas everyone else provides you with evidence. In this paper, I develop a novel problem for the PRV. In a nutshell, the problem is that the PRV cannot account for why there are cases in which the opinions of epistemic apprentices should count for something too. I conclude by offering a new reason for endorsing the Authorities-as-Advisors View (AAV). According to the AAV, testimony always provides you with evidence; it is just that relying on the say-so of an epistemic authority provides you with better evidence than relying on the say-so of anyone else.

Abstract Recent work in social epistemology has discussed obligations to engage with challenges to our beliefs like climate change denial or anti-vaccine sentiment, and the potential benefits and dangers for both the engager and the engaged from doing so. The spotlight being trained here, however, has elided a key issue: the possible risks from engaging for third-party observers, not merely the engager and the engaged. In this paper, I argue that not only are these risks an underappreciated aspect of engaging that should be discussed, but also their neglect is especially concerning as the potential negative epistemic fallout threatens to overwhelm any possible benefits that may be gained from engaging, regardless of how the engagement actually goes. I close by drawing out the theoretical and practical implications from this and sketch a few strategies to conceivably avoid said risks.

Abstract We simplify our lives by learning from others. I focus on instances where we learn from our peers by receiving evidence that they have evidence for a hypothesis. I refer to this type of learning as learning from others’ evidence . I exclusively consider cases where we do not learn what the other agent’s evidence is; we only receive evidence that such evidence exists. I approach learning from others’ evidence by exploring the following slogan, popular in epistemology: EEE-Slogan “[E]vidence of evidence is evidence. More carefully, evidence that there is evidence for h is evidence for h ” (Feldman 2007: 208; notation adjusted). I am interested in the limitations of the slogan, focus on the impact of non-epistemic values on it, and argue for the following main thesis : Non-Epistemic Values in the EEE-Slogan: There are cases in which we cannot (adequately) apply the EEE-Slogan due to the differing non-epistemic values between us and our peers. In arguing for the thesis, I draw on and expand insights from the philosophy of science. There are instances where our peers’ reasoning, commitments, and evidence (see Douglas 2000) are not rationally acceptable to us due to differences in non-epistemic values. Building on this, I contend that in such cases, we cannot (adequately) apply the slogan.

Abstract The paper examines the influence of stakes on knowledge attributions, building on the retraction-based experimental design introduced by Dinges and Zakkou. Experiment 1 replicates Dinges and Zakkou’s original findings and extends the research to third-person knowledge ascriptions. The results show that raising the stakes increases the percentage of retraction in both first- and third-person scenarios. Experiment 2 addresses potential concerns about the retraction-based design, specifically whether participants genuinely endorse the initial claim and the worry of scenario sceptics – participants who disagree with a knowledge attribution. Experiment 2 introduces a modification to the initial design by adding a knowledge-ascribing question. This addition makes the act of retraction more realistic. The results confirm that the stakes effect persists even in an improved design. I argue that these findings constitute a serious challenge to classic invariantism and a potential challenge to subject-sensitive invariantism. Their competitors – epistemic contextualism and relativism – seem to be in a better position, even though the retraction-based design at its current stage is unlikely to distinguish between these two.