ABSTRACT
We know that we are fallible creatures, prone to a variety of biases, or systematic reasoning mistakes. We also know that we all have a tendency to be overconfident about the accuracy of our judgments, including our ability to overcome or avoid common reasoning mistakes. I argue that this dual tendency for bias and overconfidence gives us reason to accept a form of epistemic paternalism, on which we are sometimes justified in interfering with the inquiry of others – including, as we shall see, by way of external constraints on what information people have access to – without their consent but for their own epistemic good.
