Why epistemology, again

Just a reminder:

There are tons of things for which we have reasons. We have reasons to fear, reasons to hope, etc. These are reactions that are conceptually distinct from belief. So why think that the study of what reasons there are to believe things might help vindicate the study of what moral reasons we have to do things? Because unlike most of these areas, it's hard to pass off epistemic statements as being second rate from a cognitive point of view. If epistemic statements can't be true or false, then we would seem to be in a boatload of trouble. And what we really want is to distinguish between reasons to fear something and reasons to believe something, and say that reasons to act morally are more like the latter than the former.

At least, that's the idea. If reasons to believe are ultimately not true/false then all of our knowledge seems to be in trouble.