This isn’t directly related to the main RP quote, but I found 6-7 more typos or editing errors (missing or extra words) and/or grammatical mistakes. They’re bolded in the quotes below.
2 errors (“a belief … might count it as rational” and “because formed”)
For those who count the boundedly rational among the rational, a belief formed on the basis of a base rate fallacy, for instance, might very well count it as rational because formed by a method that proves reliable in our evolutionary niche, but most will agree that it is not justified.
missing “it was” between “because” and “formed” (or something like that)
Is ‘a belief’ the subject of ‘might very well count it as rational’? (I think the intention is that “those who count the boundedly rational among the rational” are the ones who count the belief as rational.)
a simple fix would be to replace “count it” with “be counted”.
however, reorganizing things makes more sense and fixes the meaning:
(not a real quote, but made of phrases/clauses taken from RP’s quote above)
[Regarding] a belief formed on the basis of a base rate fallacy, for instance, those who count the boundedly rational among the rational might very well count [that belief] as rational because it was formed by a method that proves reliable in our evolutionary niche, but most will agree that it is not justified.
idk if the idea itself makes sense but at least this way is easier to read.
Apparently some people count beliefs based on fallacies as rational?
On the pluralist view, an internalist notion of justification need not serve a practical, moral, or political end at all in order to be included in our suite of justification concepts. And it certainly needn’t serve a more important such end than the end served by an externalist notion.
Feels wrong, mb there’s a dialect thing going on here? I think it can be fixed with word order alone. “… serve such an end more important than …”
Part of what is surprising about the lack of support for pluralism is that it seems the natural response when competent users of the concept—as I assume analytic epistemologists of the past fifty years to be—disagree so irreconcilably on certain of its basic features.
either “… on some of its basic features” or “… on certain basic features.”
The arguments he enumerates there can be divided into three categories based on the considerations they adduce in favour of the various accounts: in the first sort of argument, …
“adduce in favour of” – to adduce is to provide evidence/argument in support of something, so “in favour of” is redundant and superfluous, but changing it would require restructuring the sentence and the verb form. (or RP could have just replaced ‘adduce’ with ‘advance’, ‘provide’, ‘put forward’, etc)
So, for instance, a concept might help us politically if we value or disvalue for the same reasons everything that falls under it.
‘for the same reasons’ – should be parenthetical or comma separated. I’m not sure it’s ever grammatical without something kind of separation. I think it reads “… if we value or disvalue […] everything that falls under it”.
Or it might be because the nihilist thinks that the various concepts that the pluralist counts as different concepts of justification are not sufficiently closely related to count as different versions of the same concept.
alternatives that would work:
- sufficiently related
- closely related enough
- close enough
- related enough
- neither sufficiently related nor close enough