“Do Crimes, Save Lives.” —Raoul Wallenberg Raoul Wallenberg famously wrote, “I will never be able to go back to Sweden without knowing inside myself that I’d done all a man could do to save as many Jews as possible.” He… Read More ›
rationality
On the Rationality of Word-Taking, Part II, Juha Räikkä
Testimony and Morality Let us now turn to the second objection. According to it, it can be rational to take another person’s word and believe her even in cases where one does not vindicate one’s view about the speaker’s trustworthiness… Read More ›
On the Rationality of Word-Taking, Part I, Juha Räikkä
Abstract It is rather commonly assumed that “trustworthiness” is a trait among others and can be appraised with evidence, although trust may go beyond evidence in some cases. It is also rather commonly assumed that a sort of estimation of… Read More ›
Response to Hill: Conspiracy Theorizing, Ordinary Usage and Integrity, Lee Basham
Scott Hill’s most recent defense of the Le Monde declaration against conspiracy theory is welcome.[1] It’s an enjoyable and thoughtful piece with a high spirit to it. He also shares a disturbing revelation. Most important, it represents another opportunity to… Read More ›
Some Clarifications and a Modest View on Social Epistemology and Religion: A Reply to Robertson, Nicholas Smith
I’d like to thank David Robertson (2022) for his response to my work (2022). It gave me quite a bit to consider, especially given that I tend to think of myself as an epistemologist in a broadly analytic tradition, rather… Read More ›
The Dangers of Intellectual Honesty in a World of Lies: A Reply to Lee Basham, Adam Riggio
Lee Basham’s recent piece “An Autopsy of the Origins of HIV/AIDS” (2022) has some astonishingly provocative subject matter, so much as to overcome the force of his overall argument. He makes a true point: investigation into real scientific and medical… Read More ›
More Rational Disagreement, But Some Convergence Too, Keith E. Stanovich
This continuing exchange (2021a) makes it clear that Neil Levy (2021, 2022b) and I agree on many things—but we do tend to emphasize different issues and framings. Much more than he, I tend to emphasize our agreement. And I get… Read More ›
The Bias that Unites Us: A Reply to Keith Stanovich, Neil Levy
Keith Stanovich (Stanovich 2021a) accuses me of misreading his book at multiple points. I think he’s misread my review, so I guess we’re even. Perhaps neither of us were as clear as we should have been. His main point is… Read More ›
Rationally Maintaining a Worldview, Chris Ranalli
Most attention in the epistemology of disagreement has centered around epistemic peer disagreement. Epistemic peer disagreements are disagreements between epistemic peers over a proposition, p, where epistemic peers are people who are roughly equal to each other in terms of… Read More ›
When Is it Right to be Wrong? A Response to Lewandowsky, Kozyreva, and Ladyman, Neil Levy
In “Is Conspiracy Theorising Irrational?” (Levy 2019) I argued that conspiratorial ideation—defined as the acceptance (not the generation) of conspiracy theories—might be much more rational than we tend to think. I suggested such ideation might be subjectively rational—rational for the… Read More ›