Abstract
In this paper, I clarify and defend some of the central ideas of Bias in response to commentators, with a special focus on the theme of skepticism. In response to Michael Veber, I defend the project of offering a modest as opposed to an ambitious response to the skeptic. In response to Jonathan Matheson, I defend my account of the way in which bias attributions function in contexts of interpersonal disagreement, as well as the claim that an unbiased believer will generally be in a stronger position to resist skeptical pressure from disagreement than a biased believer. In response to Brett Sherman, I clarify the way in which my account of bias accommodates the phenomenon of biased suspension of judgment, and I explore some of the connections between bias, suspension of judgment, and skepticism. In response to Jared Celinker and Nathan Ballantyne, I defend the possibility of emergent biases.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 234-258 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Journal | International Journal for the Study of Skepticism |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2024 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
Keywords
- bias
- bias attributions
- biased knowing
- emergent bias
- epistemology of disagreement
- knowledge
- skepticism
- suspension of judgment