Extract

Our world is complex, and coming to an accurate picture of it is hard. When it comes to the important questions, we find that intelligent and informed people disagree with each other. Yet at the same time, many of us seem to have confident beliefs about controversial issues – the appropriate level of the minimum wage, say, or the proper approach to criminal justice. In his rigorous yet highly enjoyable book, Nathan Ballantyne offers some remedies. He defends a set of principles, which, if we use them to guide our inquiry, will likely make us more doxastically open – that is, agnostic about what attitude (belief, disbelief, or suspension of judgment) is warranted given our evidence. In this way, the book is a project in what Ballantyne calls “regulative epistemology.” A useful comparison here is non-ideal theory in political philosophy. There the question is: how should we design our political institutions given what humans are actually like? Analogously, regulative epistemology asks: given what we know about human limitations, how should we conduct our epistemic lives?

You do not currently have access to this article.