Abstract
According to the abductive argument for ought-implies-can in epistemology, we should accept some kind of ought-implies-can because it is the best explanation of the joint truth of (1) and (2): (1) I’m not rationally required to believe the arcane logical consequences of my knowledge; (2) If I had greater cognitive abilities, I would be required to believe them.
In this paper, I look at how strong an ought-implies-can principle this argument motivates. I will argue that the principle it motivates is weaker than one might think.
How to attend
This is a read-ahead seminar. The meetings have a hybrid format. We meet in person in GM 452 and digitally on Zoom (Zoom login required).
The meeting link, along with a copy of the paper to be discussed, will be made available in advance via the mailing list.