Abstract In this paper, I argue against certain positive epistemic norms, that is, norms that state sufficient conditions for being obligated to believe something. In particular, I argue against positive epistemic norms where the sufficient conditions involve being in a position to know. Such norms face two kinds of problems: they make demands that exceed our cognitive capacity, and they yield obligations and permissions to believe that seem irrational.
Thomas Kroedel (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: