If historically variable norms can count as genuinely epistemic, the criteria distinguishing epistemic norms from mere social conventions dissolve, as Siegel argues against naturalized epistemology.

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

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Epistemic norms(as standards that apply to beliefs): Rules or standards for what makes a belief reasonable or justified—basically, guidelines for how we *should* believe things.
Siegel(the philosopher being cited): Harvey Siegel, a contemporary philosopher who studies epistemology (how we know things) and has written critically about naturalized epistemology.
epistemology(Contrasted with purely descriptive scientific inquiry): A normative enterprise that tells us how we ought to reason from evidence and how we ought to justify our beliefs, as distinct from merely describing how we do reason or justify beliefs
historically variable norms(describing the type of norms being questioned): Standards or rules that change over time and differ across cultures, rather than staying the same forever.
naturalized epistemology(Contrasted with traditional epistemology's project of answering the global skeptic): An approach to epistemology that operates within science, presupposing that we already have some knowledge rather than attempting to justify knowledge from a neutral starting point
social conventions(Turiel 1983: 109–111): Norms that further the coordination of social interactions within social systems, judged wrong only because of contingent convention or because they violate the dictates of a relevant authority

2 topics