Abstract: Sharon Street (2009) argues that realism about epistemic normativity is false. Realists believe there are truths about epistemic reasons that hold independently of the agent's (or anyone else's) attitudes. Street argues by dilemma. Either the realist accepts a certain account of the nature of belief, or she does not. If she does, then she cannot consistently accept realism. If she does not, then she has no scientifically credible explanation of our beliefs about epistemic reasons, or the fact that they align with independent normative truths about them. I argue that neither horn is very sharp for realists about epistemic normativity.

Friday 7 February, Philosophy Seminar Room, Uppsala University, 11.00–13.00: