system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What’s the difference between a moral norm and an epistemic norm.

One of the core arguments against something like moral error theory is the idea that if you reject moral norms and their existence, you also reject epistemic norms. From what I’ve read, this argument is somewhat fallacious as they are not one in the same. 

However, it is never fully explained how they differ, just that they **are different**. Can anyone help me with this?
gpt
Epistemic norms relate to knowledge and belief. Something like "you ought to believe things that are true" or "your beliefs should be sensitive to evidence" might be examples of epistemic norms.

The argument you're referring to generally known as the 'companions in guilt' argument. The thought is that if you are going to reject the existence of moral norms because they are metaphysically spooky, then you also have to reject epistemic norms on the same grounds, which seems much harder to do.

Companions in guilt arguments are (unsurprisingly) controversial, but not easily dismissed.