Debating Permissivism with Metaepistemology in Mind

In this talk I’ll offer my response to the some of the recent “second-wave” arguments against permissivism. My response will be of a somewhat unconventional variety. Rather than arguing for permissivism, I’ll argue that my metaepistemologically-inclined opponents (like Dogramaci and Horowitz) don’t actually believe what they are saying. In fact they are best interpreted as being permissivists like me. If they do in fact disagree with me that should, I believe, manifest in some way
other than their utterances of sentences like “impermissivism is true” so I’ll also consider whether (purported) impermissivists would or should respond in some distinctive way to higher order evidence and disagreement.