Epistemic deferral, gnoseology, and intellectual ethics

Sosa (2021) has recently presented a dichotomy between, as he puts it, the humanistic domain, in which we seek first-hand understanding of why-questions of value and normativity through our own intuitive insight, and the practical domain in which we defer to epistemic authorities for information that correctly answers utilitarian questions. However, this neat picture is too simplistic. To use Sosa's terminology, whereas gnoseology also applies in the humanistic domain, intellectual ethics is very much equally about the practical domain. Moreover, the distinction between first- and second-hand knowledge does not coincide with any such distinction between domains of inquiry. In this paper, we first develop a virtue-theoretic account of epistemic deferral, which displays Sosa's (2021) triple-<i>A</i> and triple-<i>S</i> structures, and reflects his different levels of telic assessment. We then show how this account not only pertains to both domains, but also explains why there is no real tension between conducting our epistemic inquiries autonomously and deferring to the epistemic authorities for knowledge that we are incapable of acquiring ourselves.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Published
2025-05-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00287-7
Primary Topic
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Epistemic deferral, gnoseology, and intellectual ethics

Jesper Kallestrup, Edoardo Cavasin
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
article

Epistemic deferral, gnoseology, and intellectual ethics

Jesper Kallestrup, Edoardo Cavasin
article en

Abstract

Sosa (2021) has recently presented a dichotomy between, as he puts it, the humanistic domain, in which we seek first-hand understanding of why-questions of value and normativity through our own intuitive insight, and the practical domain in which we defer to epistemic authorities for information that correctly answers utilitarian questions. However, this neat picture is too simplistic. To use Sosa's terminology, whereas gnoseology also applies in the humanistic domain, intellectual ethics is very much equally about the practical domain. Moreover, the distinction between first- and second-hand knowledge does not coincide with any such distinction between domains of inquiry. In this paper, we first develop a virtue-theoretic account of epistemic deferral, which displays Sosa's (2021) triple-<i>A</i> and triple-<i>S</i> structures, and reflects his different levels of telic assessment. We then show how this account not only pertains to both domains, but also explains why there is no real tension between conducting our epistemic inquiries autonomously and deferring to the epistemic authorities for knowledge that we are incapable of acquiring ourselves.

Asian Journal of PhilosophyVol. 4(1)
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 88%
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Epistemic deferral, gnoseology, and intellectual ethics — Jesper Kallestrup, Edoardo Cavasin · Asian Journal of Philosophy (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS