Inquiry and the epistemicPhilosophical Studies (forthcoming).


Abstract: The zetetic turn in epistemology raises three questions about epistemic and zetetic norms. First, there is the relationship question: what is the relationship between epistemic and zetetic norms? Are some epistemic norms zetetic norms, or are epistemic and zetetic norms distinct? Second, there is the tension question: are traditional epistemic norms in tension with plausible zetetic norms? Third, there is the reaction question: how should theorists react to a tension between epistemic and zetetic norms? Drawing on an analogy to practical philosophy, I develop a focal point view to resolve these motivating questions. On the focal point view, traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms answer different types of normative questions. There is nevertheless a familiar type of evaluative tension between traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms, but this tension is an unavoidable feature of the normative landscape and not a sign that traditional epistemic norms need revision. But if traditional epistemic norms are not zetetic norms, then in what sense is zetetic epistemology a project for epistemologists? I conclude by articulating a sense in which some nontraditional epistemic norms are zetetic norms, and in which zetetic epistemology is an important part of the study of theoretical rationality. 


Permissive metaepistemology, Mind 128.511 (2019): 907-926.


Abstract: Recent objections to epistemic permissivism have a metaepistemic flavor. Impermissivists argue that their view best accounts for connections between rationality, planning and deference. Impermissivism is also taken to best explain the value of rational belief and normative assessment. These objections pose a series of metaepistemic explanatory challenges for permissivism. In this paper, I illustrate how permissivists might meet their explanatory burdens by developing two permissivist metaepistemic views which fare well against the explanatory challenges. 


Work in progress - Bounded rationality and inquiry

Abstract: I argue that bounded agents face a systematic accuracy-coherence tradeoff in cognition. Agents must choose whether to structure their cognition in ways likely to promote coherence or accuracy. I illustrate the accuracy-coherence tradeoff by showing how it arises out of at least two component tradeoffs: a coherence-complexity tradeoff between coherence and cognitive complexity, and a coherence-variety tradeoff between coherence and strategic variety. These tradeoffs give rise to an accuracy-coherence tradeoff because privileging coherence over complexity or strategic variety often leads to a corresponding reduction in accuracy. I conclude with a discussion of two normative consequences for the study of bounded rationality: the importance of procedural rationality and the role of coherence in theories of bounded rationality. 


Abstract: A new wave of evidentialist theorizing concedes that evidentialism may be extensionally incorrect as an account of all-things-considered rational belief. Nevertheless, these newer evidentialists maintain that there is an importantly distinct type of epistemic rationality about which evidentialism may be the correct account. I argue that natural ways of developing the newer evidentialist position face opposite problems. One version, due to David Christensen (forthcoming), may correctly describe what rationality requires, but does not entail the existence of a distinctively epistemic type of rationality. Another version, due to Barry Maguire and Jack Woods (forthcoming), characterizes a normative concept that is both distinct and epistemic, but struggles to explain why this concept should be classified as a type of rationality. I conclude that the newer evidentialist strategy of extensional compromise may be less favorable to evidentialism than previously supposed.

Abstract: I argue that there are two distinct deontic roles for unpossessed evidence. First, we sometimes have duties to gather evidence that we do not possess. And second, evidence that we fail to gather may nonetheless bear on how we now ought to act. I argue that subjectivist deontic theories perform well on the first role, but poorly on the second. I propose a way for subjectivists to capture the second role by taking two steps towards objectivism: an information-sensitive account of deontic modals on which the relevant body of evidence is the evidence that agents should have had. I propose and reject two accounts of the notion of evidence that agents should have had, then sketch a third way to make progress in understanding this notion.

Abstract: With regard to belief, most epistemologists are epistemic prioritarians. We think that there is a distinct species of epistemic rationality which applies to belief, and that the most important project for epistemologists studying rational belief is to characterize the epistemic norms governing belief. In this paper, I ask whether epistemologists should adopt an analogous epistemic prioritarian stance towards rational inquiry. I review three prominent arguments for epistemic prioritarianism about belief: the argument from non-existence that there are no non-epistemic reasons for belief; the argument from epistemic terms that epistemic rationality is needed to account for the most natural reading of key epistemic terms; and the argument from theoretical roles that epistemic rationality is best-placed to play important theoretical roles which we want an account of rationality to play. In each case, I show that these arguments may well support epistemic prioritarianism as a stance towards belief, but that none of these arguments generalizes to support epistemic prioritarianism for inquiry, and in many cases the arguments tell against epistemic prioritarianism for inquiry. I conclude with a discussion of three ways in which the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic norms for inquiry could be conceived without presupposing an epistemic prioritarian stance towards inquiry.


Abstract: My aim in this paper is to develop an account of rational inquiry for bounded agents. I argue that an account should meet three minimal criteria. First, it should be tradeoff-sensitive, saying how scarce cognitive and non-cognitive resources are to be allocated within the course of a single inquiry, between competing inquiries, and between inquiry and other activities. Second, it should be stakes-sensitive, saying why more resources should typically be invested in our most important inquiries. And third, it should explain the irrationality of many instances of stereotyping, despite the superficial resemblance of stereotyping to cases of rational heuristic inquiry. I argue that we cannot meet these criteria by extending traditional accounts of rational belief or by applying existing philosophical accounts of bounded rationality. I develop a reason-responsiveness consequentialist view of rational inquiry for bounded agents and argue that this view fares well by the lights of the minimal criteria. 


Abstract: Epistemologists have recently proposed a number of norms governing rational inquiry. My aim in this paper is to unify and explain recently proposed norms of inquiry by developing a general account of the conditions under which inquiries are rational, analogous to theories such as evidentialism and reliabilism for rational belief. I begin with a reason-responsiveness conception of rationality as responding correctly to possessed normative reasons. I extend this account with a series of claims about the normative reasons for inquiry that we possess. I apply the account to shed light on two classes of norms that have featured prominently in recent discussions: norms of clutter avoidance forbidding agents from engaging in trivial inquiries, and norms of logical non-omniscience governing properties such as the deductive closure and consistency of an agent's belief state. I conclude with a discussion of the sense in which norms of inquiry should be regarded as epistemic norms. 

Abstract: My aim in this paper is to develop a unified solution to three paradoxes of bounded rationality. The first is the regress problem that incorporating cognitive bounds into models of rational decisionmaking generates a regress of higher-order decision problems. The second is the problem of rational irrationality: it sometimes seems rational for bounded agents to act irrationally on the basis of rational deliberation. The third is the rational inevitability of maximization: it seems that behavior must maximize some important quantity such as value or choiceworthiness in order to be rational, contradicting the claim that bounded rationality is a form of satisficing rather than maximization. I review two strategies which have been brought to bear on these problems: the way of weakening which responds by weakening rational norms, and the way of indirection which responds by letting the rationality of behavior be determined by the rationality of the deliberative processes which produced it. Then I propose and defend a third way to confront the paradoxes: the way of level separation. 

Work in progress - Global priorities research

At the Global Priorities Institute working paper series.


Abstract: By the lights of traditional normative theories, human inquiry is substantially irrational. Humans regularly violate normative constraints set out by logic, probability theory, and decision theory. Traditional normative theories blame the agent, taking these findings to show that humans are irrational. By contrast, I suggest it is often better to blame the theory. Many seeming irrationalities are instances of rational inquiry by bounded agents. To defend this claim, I develop a consequentialist account of rational inquiry and metacognition. This view explains the value of rationality, accounts for duties to gather evidence, and is our best hope for vindicating empirically demonstrated biases as instances of rational inquiry. I apply this account of rational inquiry to clarify and ground a collection of normative claims that arise in scientific theorizing about bounded rationality.