This book features original essays by leading epistemologists that address questions related to epistemic dilemmas from a variety of new, sometimes unexpected, angles. It seems plausible that there can be "no win" moral situations in which no matter what one does one fails some moral obligation. Is there an epistemic analog to moral dilemmas? Are there epistemically dilemmic situations-situations in which we are doomed to violate an epistemic requirement? If there are, when exactly do they arise and what can we learn from them? The contributors to this volume cover a wide variety of positions on epistemic dilemmas. The coverage ranges from discussions of the nature of epistemic dilemmas to arguments that there are no such things to suggestions for how to resolve (or at least live with) epistemic dilemmas to proposals for how thinking about epistemic dilemmas can be used to inform theorizing in other areas of epistemology. Epistemic Dilemmas will be of interest to scholars and advanced students in epistemology working on the nature of justification and evidential support, higher-order requirements, or suspension of judgment.

This volume gathers eleven new and three previously published essays on the fertile connection between ethics and epistemology. They examine the following topics: epistemic duty, doxastic voluntarism, the normativity of justification, internalism vs. externalism, truth as the epistemic goal, skepticism and the search for the criteria of justification, virtue epistemology, and understanding as an epistemic value. Among the contributors are Erneat Sosa, Linda Zagzebski, Susan Haack, and Alvin Goldman.