Believing 'F' while simultaneously endorsing 'my evidence does not support F' violates the norm of epistemic akrasia-avoidance, which Titelbaum argues is a synchronic rational requirement.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Epistemic: "Epistemic" relates to knowledge—how we know things, what counts as knowledge, and whether we can trust what we believe to be true. It comes from the Greek word for knowledge and is used to describe questions about the reliability and validity of our beliefs and understanding. For example, "epistemic humility" means acknowledging the limits of what you can actually know for certain.
Rational requirement(as used in epistemology and ethics): A rule or principle that reason itself demands we follow—something that comes from the nature of logical thinking, not just from our chosen methods.
Synchronic(in epistemology and logic): Referring to things that exist or happen at the same time, rather than over a period of time. Here, it means the requirements that your beliefs need to satisfy right now, not how they change over time.
Titelbaum(as the philosopher cited for this particular theory about rational consistency): Mikhail Titelbaum is a contemporary philosopher who specializes in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and argues that our beliefs should always match up with our evidence.

Based on where you are in your exploration