engleski

Epistemic Peerhood and the Procedural Epistemic Value of Deliberation: Rejecting Second-Personal Epistemic Authority

The paper offers a comprehensive critique of Peter's approach to political legitimacy. While Peter argues that, in the conditions when two persons are equally likely to make a mistake (when they are epistemic peers), they should not be accountable to the truth but only to each other, the paper claims that the very notion of epistemic peerhood requires some appeal to the truth. Namely, if epistemic peers are defined as people who are equally likely to make a mistake, they are defines according to some procedure-independent criterion (i.e. their ability to get to the correct answer).

Darwall, Epistemic peerhood, Peter, Second-personal reasons, Legitimacy, Epistemic democracy

nije evidentirano