The Normative Evaluation of Belief and the Aspectual Classification of Belief and Knowledge Attributions'
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 109 (10):588–612 (2012)
It is a piece of philosophical commonsense that belief and knowledge are states. Some epistemologists reject this claim in hope of answering certain difficult questions about the normative evaluation of belief. I shall argue, however, that this move offends not only against philosophical commonsense but also against ordinary common sense, at least as far as this is manifested in the semantic content of the words we use to talk about belief and knowledge. I think it is relatively easily to show with some linguistic tests that ordinary belief and knowledge attributions should be classified aspectually as state descriptions. Hence, the move some epistemologists (especially virtue epistemologists like Sosa) to deny that belief and knowledge are states threatens to simply change the topic rather than open up answers to difficult questions in epistemology. I do not know fully how to answer the relevant questions about the normative evaluation of belief, but I pursue this critical point here in service of a positive proposal about the general framework in which they should be answered. In brief, the general framework is one which recognizes an important place for what I call state-norms, beside the action-norms which are more familiar from normative theory. And it locates the epistemic norms that apply to beliefs and are relevant for knowledge on the state-norm side of this divide. This turns out to be not only consistent with but indeed to underwrites the philosophical and ordinary commonsense that belief and knowledge are states.
|Keywords||Mental States Epistemology Theory of Knowledge Aktionsart Aspect Epistemic Normativity state-norms action-norms|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
J. Adam Carter, Benjamin Jarvis & Katherine Rubin (2013). Knowledge: Value on the Cheap. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):249-263.
Jonathan Ichikawa, Benjamin Jarvis & Katherine Rubin (2012). Pragmatic Encroachment and Belief-Desire Psychology. Analytic Philosophy 53 (4):327-343.
Similar books and articles
Ralph Wedgwood (2002). The Aim of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 16 (s16):267-97.
Declan Smithies (2012). The Normative Role of Knowledge. Noûs 46 (2):265-288.
Jonathan Weisberg (2013). Knowledge in Action. Philosophers' Imprint 13 (22).
Raul Hakli (2007). On the Possibility of Group Knowledge Without Belief. Social Epistemology 21 (3):249 – 266.
Clayton Littlejohn (2010). Moore's Paradox and Epistemic Norms. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.
Jon Robson (2013). Aesthetic Testimony and the Norms of Belief Formation. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (3).
Baron Reed (2005). Accidentally Factive Mental States. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1):134–142.
Lloyd P. Gerson (2006). Platonic Knowledge and the Standard Analysis. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (4):455 – 474.
Barbara Trybulec (2008). Naturalizm bez normatywności? Głos w obronie epistemologii znaturalizowanej. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Daniel Whiting (2013). Nothing but the Truth: On the Norms and Aims of Belief. In Timothy Chan (ed.), The Aim of Belief. Oxford University Press.
Ingvar Johansson (1998). Hume's Surprise and the Logic of Belief Changes. Synthese 117 (2):275-291.
John Skorupski (2012). The Triplism of Practical Reason. Ratio 25 (2):127-147.
Added to index2011-09-09
Total downloads103 ( #11,632 of 1,099,788 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #14,384 of 1,099,788 )
How can I increase my downloads?