The Rational Inquirer: Disagreement, Evidence, and the Doxastic Attitudes

— —

Michele Palmira (Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow, Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy, Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow, Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy, University of Madrid)

The Rational Inquirer

Disagreement, Evidence, and the Doxastic Attitudes

Michele Palmira (Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow, Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy, Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow, Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy, University of Madrid)

$182.95

Hardback

Not in-store but you can order this
How long will it take?

Availability Information

We source books from suppliers in Australia and overseas. For books we don't currently have in stock, the time it takes to get them from our suppliers can vary widely - from a few days to a few months - so we check each book with each supplier to determine the expected time it will take to be supplied to us.

We then advise you accordingly. If the time taken to get any book is too long for you, you can let us know and we will cancel or adjust your order, and refund as required.

To find out the anticipated arrival time for specific items prior to ordering, please contact us by phone or email:

Phone +61 2 9264 3111, or 1800 4 BOOKS (1800 4 26657) if outside Sydney:
option 1 Abbey's Bookshop (Crime, History, Science, Kids & more) • info@abbeys.com.au
option 2 Language Book Centre (ESL & Foreign Languages) • language@abbeys.com.au
option 3 Galaxy Bookshop (Sci-fi, Fantasy, Romance, Graphic Novels) • sf@galaxybooks.com.au

QTY:

English

Oxford University Press
07 October 2025

Philosophy: epistemology & theory of knowledge; Philosophy: logic; Philosophy of mind

The Rational Inquirer offers an original account of the rational response to peer disagreement in terms of a duty to double-check one's initial conclusions and a permission to retain an inquiry-directing attitude of hypothesis toward those conclusions. This allows for a vindication of the competing rational pressures to revise and retain one's original views that give rise to the distinctive puzzle of peer disagreement.

Michele Palmira conceives of peer disagreement as higher-order evidence that generates a genuine epistemic duty to double-check one's initial conclusions. His inquiry-theoretic approach contrasts with existing approaches that characterise the rational response to higher-order evidence in terms of doxastic duties to revise or retain one's beliefs. He develops a pluralist view of the aims of inquiry, offers a definition of double-checking, and defends the genuine epistemic nature of the duty to double-check. Palmira shows that while the duty to double-check is incompatible with rational belief retention, it is compatible with the retention of an attitude of hypothesis whereby two peers retain their cognitive leanings toward conflicting answers to the question at hand. He also contends that hypothesis is a sui generis doxastic attitude that does not reduce to suspended judgement or credences, develops a non-evidentialist and consequentialist view of the central epistemic norm governing rational hypothesis, and argues that the account on offer compares favourably with recent views that also appeal to doxastic attitudes other than belief and suspended judgement.

By: Michele Palmira (Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy University of Madrid)
Imprint: Oxford University Press
Country of Publication: United Kingdom
Dimensions: Height: 240mm, Width: 165mm, Spine: 20mm
Weight: 518g
ISBN: 9780198925156
ISBN 10: 0198925158
Pages: 240
Publication Date: 07 October 2025
Audience: College/higher education , Further / Higher Education
Format: Hardback
Publisher's Status: Active

Michele Palmira is a Ramón y Cajal Research Fellow in the Department of Logic and Theoretical Philosophy of the Complutense University of Madrid. Previously, he held postdoctoral positions at the University of Barcelona and at McGill University. Palmira completed his PhD in 2013 at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Palmira works in epistemology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. He is the author of articles on disagreement, higher-order evidence, inquiry, and first-person thought appearing in journals such as The Journal of Philosophy, Noûs, Philosophical Studies, The Philosophical Quarterly, and American Philosophical Quarterly.