Abstract
Recent empirical work on non-philosophers’ intuitions about epistemic
normativity reveals patterns that cannot be fully accounted for by direct epistemic
consequentialism. On the basis of these results, one might picture participants as
“epistemic deontologists.”We present the results of two new experiments that support
a more nuanced picture. We examine intuitions about guesses and hypotheses, and
about beliefs. Our results suggest a two-factor model of intuitions, wherein both consequentialist
and non-consequentialist considerations affect participants’ judgments
about epistemic permissibility.