• DOI:10.1093/ACPROF:OSO/9780199733477.003.0008
• Corpus ID: 17885700

Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions

@article{Weinberg2001NormativityAE,
  title={Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions},
  author={Jonathan M. Weinberg and Shaun Nichols and Stephen G. W. Stich},
  journal={Philosophical Topics},
  year={2001},
  volume={29},
  pages={191-222}
}

• J. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols, S. Stich
• Published 1 July 2001
• Philosophy
• Philosophical Topics

In this paper we propose to argue for two claims. The first is that a sizeable group of epistemological projects – a group which includes much of what has been done in epistemology in the analytic tradition – would be seriously undermined if one or more of a cluster of empirical hypotheses about epistemic intuitions turns out to be true. The basis for this claim will be set out in Section 2. The second claim is that, while the jury is still out, there is now a substantial body of evidence suggesting that some of those empirical hypotheses are true. Much of this evidence derives from an ongoing series of experimental studies of epistemic intuitions that we have been conducting. A preliminary report on these studies will be presented in Section 3. In light of these studies, we think it is incumbent on those who pursue the epistemological projects in question to either explain why the truth of the hypotheses does not undermine their projects, or to say why, in light of the evidence we will present, they nonetheless assume that the hypotheses are false. In Section 4, which is devoted to Objections and Replies, we’ll consider some of the ways in which defenders of the projects we are criticizing might reply to our challenge. Our goal, in all of this, is not to offer a conclusive argument demonstrating that the epistemological projects we will be criticizing are untenable. Rather, our aim is to shift the burden of argument.