Journal
ANALYSIS
Volume 81, Issue 4, Pages 622-631Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/analys/anab037
Keywords
inquiry; confirmation; norms of inquiry; inquiring attitudes; aims
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This article discusses the puzzle of combining two incompatible norms of inquiry and proposes a solution. The author argues that rejecting the prohibition on inquiring into a question while believing an answer to it is the best way to resolve the puzzle and highlights two areas in the epistemology of inquiry that deserve further investigation.
A puzzle arises when combining two individually plausible, yet jointly incompatible, norms of inquiry. On the one hand, it seems that one should not inquire into a question while believing an answer to that question. But, on the other hand, it seems rational to inquire into a question while believing its answer, if one is seeking confirmation. , who has recently identified this puzzle, suggests a possible solution, though he notes that it comes with significant costs. I offer an alternative solution, which does not involve these costs. The best way to resolve the puzzle is to reject the prohibition on inquiring into a question while believing an answer to it. Resolving the puzzle in this way makes salient two fruitful areas in the epistemology of inquiry that merit further investigation. The first concerns the nature of the inquiring attitudes and the second concerns the aim(s) of inquiry.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available