Epistemic Akrasia, Higher-order Evidence, and Charitable Belief Attribution

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?


Epistemic akrasia refers to the possibility of forming an attitude that fails to conform to one’s best judgment. In this paper, I will be concerned with the question whether epistemic akrasia is rational and I will argue that it is not. Addressing this question, in turn, raises the question of the epistemic significance of higher-order evidence. After examining some of the views on this subject, I will present an argument to show why higher-order evidence is relevant to the epistemic status of the pertinent first-order beliefs. This helps to show why a standard argument for the rationality of epistemic akrasia does not work. Finally, I shall try to show how considerations involving Davidson’s theory of radical interpretation bear on the question of the rationality of epistemic akrasia.



AdlerJ. (2002). “Akratic Believing?”Philosophical Studies 10: 127.

ChildW. (1992). Causality, Interpretation and the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ChristensenD. (2007). “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News,” The Philosophical Review 116: 187217.

CoatesA. (2012). “Rational Epistemic Akrasia,” American Philosophical Quarterly 49: 113124.

DavidsonD. (1980). “How is Weakness of the Will Possible?”In his Actions & Events, 21–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

——. (1985a). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

——. (1985b). “Radical Interpretation.” In Davidson (1985a), 125139.

——. (1985c). “Thought and Talk.” In Davidson (1985a), 155171.

ElgaA. (2007). “Reflection and Disagreement,” Noûs 41: 478502.

FeldmanR. (2005). “Respecting the Evidence,” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 95119.

GrecoD. (Forthcoming). “A Puzzle About Epistemic Akrasia,” Philosophical Studies.

HarmanG. (1986). Change in View. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.

HorowtizS. (Forthcoming). “Epistemic Akrasia,” Noûs.

HurleyS. (1989). Natural Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

KellyT. (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 1: 167196.

——. (2010). “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In FeldmanR. and WarfieldT. (eds.), Disagreement, 111174. New York: Oxford University Press.

LevyN. (2004). “Epistemic Akrasia and the Subsumption of Evidence: A Reconsideration,” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 10: 149156.

MooreG. E. (1942). “A Reply to My Critics.” In P. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, 543–667. Evanston: Tudor.

OwensD. (2002). “Epistemic Akrasia,” The Monist 85: 381397.

PollockJ. (1974). Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totawa, nj: Rowman & Littlefield.

PutnamH. (1998). Representation and Reality. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.

QuineW.V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.

RibeiroB. (2011). “Epistemic Akrasia,” International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 1: 1825.

SchroederT. (2003). “Donald Davidson’s Theory of Mind Is Non-normative,” Philosophers’ Imprint 3: 114.

SmithiesD. (2012). “Moore’s Paradox and the Accessibility of Justification,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85: 273300.

ShoemakerS. (1995). “Moore’s Paradox and Self-Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies 77: 211228.

WeathersonB. (ms). “Do Judgments Screen Evidence?

WilliamsJ. N. (2004). “Moore’s Paradox, Evans’s Principle and Self-Knowledge,” Analysis 64: 348353.

WilliamsonT. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ZangwillN. (2005). “The Normativity of the Mental,” Philosophical Explorations 8: 120.

——. (2010). “Normativity and the Metaphysics of Mind,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88: 2139.


 See, for example, Hurley (1989), Adler (1999), and (with some qualifications) Owens (2002).


The general idea is due to Levy (2004). See also Ribeiro (2011).


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 2
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0