[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-162617-105":53,"doc-detail-162617-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","preface-brian-weatherson-interest-relative-epistemology","Preface - Brian Weatherson - Interest-Relative Epistemology","","Preface by Brian Weatherson introduces the book as an updated collection that revises earlier papers on an idiosyncratic version of interest-relative epistemology. It explains how knowledge is tied to the ability to rationalise action while recognizing practical limits, especially in long-odds situations rather than high-stakes cases. The author also reframes when knowledge disappears by shifting focus from inquiry outputs to inappropriate starting points, and motivates why practical inquiry need not be modelled via expected utility maximisation.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/preface-brian-weatherson-interest-relative-epistemology/162617/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/preface-brian-weatherson-interest-relative-epistemology/162617.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Himbo","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-09-21","2026-08-30",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":73},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"How does the author describe the book’s overall composition?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The book is about 60% new material, 20% heavily edited from earlier work, and 20% lightly edited republishing placed into a coherent narrative.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"According to the preface, what condition makes knowledge go away?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"Knowledge goes away in long-odds situations, and also in cases where it is trivial to check before action.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What change does the author make regarding how knowledge is identified in inquiry?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The author shifts from focusing on wrong outputs of inquiry to focusing on whether the inquirer begins with an inappropriate starting point—one that would be irrational to use because it might be false.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},162617,1790004987,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":73,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},687197100911,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a000239b6f1da00475?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1785132997149421697","Knowledge\nA Human Interest Story\nBrian Weatherson\n2024-11-16\n\u0003Table of contents\n\u0013TOC \\o \"1-3\" \\h \\z \\u\u0014\u0015\u0004\nPreface\nOver the years I’ve written many papers defending an idiosyncratic version of interest-relative epistemology. This book collects and updates the views I’ve expressed over those papers.\nMy original plan was not a collection of papers, that would hardly add much value over a well designed webpage, but a book that was largely structured out of different sections of different papers. My thought was that I had something like a working theory between the papers, and what would be useful would be to blend the sentences, paragraphs, and even whole sections from them into a coherent narrative. Some of that plan has been retained. Most sections in Chapters \u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"sec-ratbel\" \\h \u00148\u0015 and \u0013 HYPERLINK \\l \"sec-evidence\" \\h \u00149\u0015 are very similar to sections in one or other previously published paper. But the bulk of the book is new. In putting the pieces together, I realised that I’d changed my mind about enough things, and needed to express myself very differently about enough other things, so as to make it worth rewriting much of what I had. The result is that this is about 60% a new book, 20% a heavily edited version of previous material, and 20% lightly edited republishing of previous material. Even that last 20% has some value I think - it helps to see those points in the context of an overall story - but this is mostly a new book.\nInterest-relative epistemologies all start in roughly the same way. A big part of what makes knowledge important is that it rationalises action. But for almost anything we purportedly know, there is some action that it wouldn’t rationalise. I know what I had for breakfast, but I wouldn’t take a bet at billion to one odds about it. Knowledge has practical limits. The first idiosyncratic feature of my version of interest-relative epistemology is how those limits are identified. Other interest-relative philosophers typically say that the limits have to do with stakes; in high stakes situations knowledge goes away. That’s no part of my view. I think knowledge goes away in long odds situations. High stakes situations are almost always long odds situations, for reasons to do with the declining marginal utility of money. But the converse isn’t true. On my view, knowledge often goes away in cases where it is trivial to check before action. This idea, that interests matter in long odds cases, and not just in high stakes cases, is the main constant in what I’ve written on interest-relativity over the years.\nBut there are three other respects in which the view I’m going to set out and defend in this book is very different from the view I set out in older papers.\nI used to say that knowledge went away in cases where replying on the purported knowledge would lead to the wrong answer. I focused, that is, on the outputs of inquiry. Knowledge goes away if relying on it would lead one to make a mistake. I now think I was looking at the wrong end of inquiry. Knowledge goes away if the thinker starts conducting an inquiry where the purported knowledge is an inappropriate starting point, and inappropriate for the special reason that it might be false. One way to recognise a bad starting point is by realising that starting there will mean we end up at the wrong place. Sometimes a bad starting point will lead to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. As the Nyāya philosophers argued, rational inquiry starts with knowledge. If it would be irrational to start this inquiry with a particular belief, that belief isn’t knowledge.\nNot all inquiries are practical inquiries, but many are. And practical inquiries are usually going to be at the centre of attention in this book. But what is someone trying to figure out when they conduct a practical inquiry? I used to think that they were trying to figure out which option maximised expected utility, and to a first approximation identified knowledge with those things one","cbCaiq2q28sHYqSP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiq2q28sHYqSP","docx",260485,368,"English","# Preface\n## Book purpose and structure\n## Knowledge and practical limits\n## Limits: long odds vs high stakes\n## Knowledge and appropriate starting points\n## Practical inquiry and expected utility","[{\"question\":\"How does the author describe the book’s overall composition?\",\"answer\":\"The book is about 60% new material, 20% heavily edited from earlier work, and 20% lightly edited republishing placed into a coherent narrative.\"},{\"question\":\"According to the preface, what condition makes knowledge go away?\",\"answer\":\"Knowledge goes away in long-odds situations, and also in cases where it is trivial to check before action.\"},{\"question\":\"What change does the author make regarding how knowledge is identified in inquiry?\",\"answer\":\"The author shifts from focusing on wrong outputs of inquiry to focusing on whether the inquirer begins with an inappropriate starting point—one that would be irrational to use because it might be false.\"}]","Preface - Brian Weatherson - Interest-Relative Epistemology | DOCX",1788127448,129]