Several proponents of the knowledge-first programme have argued that one has an obligation to believe that p if one is in a position to know that p. I argue that this is false since obligations agglomerate but being in a position to know does not. Moreover, I demonstrate that if one is obligated to believe that which one is in a position to know, then self-reflective subjects are practically always obligated to believe p and obligated to believe that they do not know that p. Finally, I suggest that this argument generalizes to many candidate positive epistemic obligations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaakko Hirvelä (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: