Annalisa Coliva is Professor in the Department of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine, US. She has published widely on the subjects of epistemology, philosophy of mind and languages and the history of analytic philosophy and is the originator of the concept of 'hinge epistemology'. Her most recent books include The Varieties of Self-Knowledge (2016) and Extended Rationality: A Hinge Epistemology (2015).

Introduction.- SECTION I: Epistemic Pluralism: Methdological Issues.- Chapter 1: Epistemic pluralism(s), Annalisa Coliva & Nikolaj Pedersen.- Chapter 2: Epistemic pluralism from the point of view of Carnap's method of explication, Erik Olsson.- SECTION II: Epistemic Pluralism: Justification, Knowledge, and Epistemic Values.- Chapter 3: Pluralism about epistemic justification, Michael Blome-Tillmann.- Chapter 4: The plurality of justification and the solution of misunderstanding, Anne Meylan.- Chapter 5: Who wants to know?, Jennifer Nado.- Chapter 6: Epistemic goods and epistemic standings: A pluralist account, Nikolaj Pedersen.- Chapter 7: Can there be a dual aspect epistemology?, Pascal Engel.- SECTION III: Epistemic Pluralism and Epistemic Relativism.- Chapter 8: A defense of epistemic pluralism, Martin Kusch.- Chapter 9: Epistemic relativism, epistemic pluralism and hinge epistemology, J. Adam Carter.- SECTION IV: Epistemic Pluralism: Some Applications.- Chapter 10: Unity and plurality in the epistemic norms of action and assertion, Mikkel Gerken.- Chapter 11: How to be a pluralist about disagreement, Michele Palmira.- Chapter 12: A pluralistic way out of epistemic deflationism about ontological disputes, Delia Belleri.- Chapter 13: Pluralism about self-knowledge, Annalisa Coliva.

This book examines epistemic pluralism, a brand new area of research in epistemology with dramatic implications for the discipline. Challenging traditional assumptions about the nature of justification, an expert team of contributors explores pluralism about justification, with compelling first-order results - including analysis of the various requisites one might want to impose on the notion of justification (and therefore of knowledge) and why. It is shown why a long-lasting dispute within epistemology about the nature of justification has reached a stalemate and how embracing a different overarching outlook might lead to progress and aid better appreciation of the relationship between the various epistemic projects scholars have been pursuing.