Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 82 (2):157–177 (2001)
|Abstract||I argue that it is not ideally rational to believe that some of one's current beliefs are false, despite the impressive inductive evidence concerning others and our former selves. One's own current beliefs represent a commitment which would be undermined by taking some of them to be false. The nature of this commitment is examined in the light of Nagel's distinction between subjective and objective points of view. Finally, I suggest how we might acknowledge our fallibility consistently with this special attitude to our own beliefs.|
|Keywords||fallibility belief Preface|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kay Mathiesen (2006). The Epistemic Features of Group Belief. Episteme 2 (3):161-175.
Steven L. Reynolds (2011). Doxastic Voluntarism and the Function of Epistemic Evaluations. Erkenntnis 75 (1):19-35.
Raul Hakli (2007). On the Possibility of Group Knowledge Without Belief. Social Epistemology 21 (3):249 – 266.
Kevin T. Kelly (1999). Iterated Belief Revision, Reliability, and Inductive Amnesia. Erkenntnis 50 (1):11-58.
Thomas Kelly (2007). Evidence and Normativity: Reply to Leite. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):465–474.
John N. Williams (2012). Moore-Paradoxical Belief, Conscious Belief and the Epistemic Ramsey Test. Synthese 188 (2):231-246.
Andrew Huddleston (2012). Naughty Beliefs. Philosophical Studies 160 (2):209-222.
David S. Oderberg (2000). Is There a Right to Be Wrong? Philosophy 75 (4):517-537.
Simon Evnine (2008). Epistemic Dimensions of Personhood. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #61,504 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,099 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?