1. What makes Epistemic Responsibility important? Explain your answer.

- One of the assumptions of dialogical epistemology of daily life is that epistemic

responsibility is derived from the ethical nature of the Ego-Alter connections. It is
relational like other dialogical axioms. Rommetveit and Arendt's scenarios serve as
examples of this, demonstrating how both the presumption of epistemic equality and the
asymmetry between the Self and Other can result in epistemic accountability or its
denial. Examples from Bakhtin and Levinas show how different kinds of epistemic
responsibility exist. In Bakhtin's view, the ego cannot avoid accountability for originality
and integrity. According to Levinas, the Self's obligation to the Other is unbounded and
undeniable; it is the fundamental tenet of human life. Action in response to injustice is a
sort of responsibility for the Other. If I do not act to uphold justice when my neighbor
wrongs someone else, I will be held accountable. Bureaucratization that permeates
organizations like universities and health systems is one of the current threats to
epistemic responsibility. According to Patoka, bureaucratization's assault on the
sciences is also an assault on the idea of scientific conscience. This assault must be
fought by forging scientific solidarity among working scientists. Patoka exhorts scientists
and professionals to act morally and responsibly with their knowledge.
2. Do evidence and justification contribute to knowing and believing?
- In epistemology, it is frequently assumed that evidence is pertinent to justified
belief, which is therefore generally assumed to be required for knowing. The two main
topics of epistemological concern, knowledge and justified belief, are perhaps best
understood when they are understood in the context of evidence. In the philosophy of
science, evidence is seen to be what supports or contradicts scientific hypotheses,
and as a result, it serves as our basis for selecting sensibly between conflicting
worldviews. In light of this, comprehension of the correct operation of the scientific
endeavor would be essential for interpreting evidence.

3. Can we use Epistemic Responsibility in evaluating religious belief? Why /why

not?
- The dispute over whether evidentialism should be applied to religious ideas or if we
should instead embrace a more liberal epistemology may be easily characterized as the
contemporary epistemology of religion. Evidentialism in this context refers to the initially
tenable view that a belief is only justifiable if "it is proportional to the evidence." Imagine,
for instance, that a local weather forecaster has observed that, over the 200 years since
records first began, a wetter-than-average Winter is 85 percent of the time followed by a
hotter-than-average Summer. The forecaster is thus justified in anticipating with less
than complete certainty that this Winter, which is wetter than normal, will be followed by
a hotter than usual Summer, presuming for simplicity that the records are accurate.