ABSTRACT

In this chapter, we propose to argue for two claims. The first is that a sizeable group of epistemological projects--a group that includes much of what has been done in epistemology in the analytic tradition-would be seriously undermined if one or more of a cluster of empirical hypotheses about epistemic intuitions turns out to be true. The basis for this claim is set out in the next section. The second claim is that, while the jury is still out, there is now a substantial body of evidence suggesting that some of those empirical hypotheses are true. Much of this evidence derives from an ongoing series of experimental studies of epistemic intuitions that we have been conducting. A preliminary report on these studies is presented in turn. In light of these studies, we think it is incumbent on those who pursue the epistemological projects in question to either explain why the truth of the hypotheses does not undermine their projects, or to say why, in light of the evidence we present, they nonetheless assume that the hypotheses are false. In the fourth section, which is devoted to Objections and Replies, we consider some of the ways in which defenders of the projects we are criticizing might reply to our challenge. Our goal in all of this is not to offer a conclusive argument demonstrating that the epistemological projects we criticize are untenable. Rather, our aim is to shift the burden of argument. For far too long, epistemologists who rely heavily on epistemic intuitions have proceeded as though they could simply ignore the empirical hypotheses we set out. We will be well satisfied if we succeed in making a plausible case for the claim that this approach is no longer acceptable.