The article considers lying as an epistemic attitude, analyzes its structural and substantive characteristics. In particular, it considers the pragmatic consequences of using false beliefs, primarily in scientific practice. It is shown that in a number of cases false epistemic attitudes can play a positive role, mainly as temporary hypothetical or counterfactual assumptions, as well as positive illusions. The paper also analyzes two alternative approaches towards false beliefs: “knowledge-first epistemology” of T. Williamson and “action-first epistemology” in line with epistemic pragmatism. (...) It considers the potential of the latter approach and, in particular, the way of reconciling two seemingly conflicting normative frameworks – for beliefs and for actions. This, in turn, opens the way for building a complex normative system with different “directions of fit” between beliefs and actions on one side and the world on the other. (shrink)

The paper analyzes the main social contexts constituting social epistemology. It describes external so­cio-political contexts which define the framework and required procedures for open research, scientif­ic consensus and epistemic justice. However, the article argues for special importance of internal social contexts – those of knowledge production in research groups. The treatment of knowledge as a collective enterprise requires, in turn, discussion of a new set of problems: the ways and mechanisms of creating the collective subject of knowledge, ways of overcoming (...) disagreements between individual researchers and research teams, explanation of scientific change and others. The «social turn» in epistemology calls for a careful study of these two types of interacting contexts – external and internal ones. (shrink)

Epistemic paternalism is usually understood as interference in the inquiry of another person without their consent, but for their own good. The epistemic good is often treated in the tradition of “veritism” which means the pursuit of truth. The article argues that one of the options for justifying epistemic paternalism can be epistemic akrasia, that manifests itself either in the acceptance of opposing views, or the inability to draw conclusions from already accepted premises, or the refusal to adhere to higher-order (...) epistemic attitudes. Correcting such behavior requires an expansive interpretation of epistemic paternalism while respecting safeguards that protect such personal values as freedom and autonomy. (shrink)

The article provides a brief analysis of the current debate on the two types of knowledge – knowledge-how and knowledge-that and discusses the possibility of reduction of the former to the latter. Two promising anti-reductionist strategies are highlighted. The first strategy uses the notion of “epistemic luck” to demonstrate that the epistemic characteristics of these two kinds of knowledge differ. The second strategy can be based on M. Dewitt’s treatment of linguistic knowledge, which, if accepted, at least deprives the proponents (...) of epistemic reductionism of claims to the universality of their position. (shrink)