David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 75 (1):19-35 (2011)
Control of our own beliefs is allegedly required for the truth of epistemic evaluations, such as S ought to believe that p , or S ought to suspend judgment (and so refrain from any belief) whether p . However, we cannot usually believe or refrain from believing at will. I agree with a number of recent authors in thinking that this apparent conflict is to be resolved by distinguishing reasons for believing that give evidence that p from reasons that make it desirable to believe that p whether or not p is true. I argue however that there is a different problem, one that becomes clearer in light of this solution to the first problem. Someone’s approval of our beliefs is at least often a non-evidential reason to believe, and as such cannot change our beliefs. Ought judgments aim to change the world. But ‘ought to believe’ judgments can’t do that by changing the belief, if they don’t give evidence. So I argue that we should instead regard epistemic ought judgments as aimed mainly at influencing assertions that express the belief and other actions based on the belief, in accord with recent philosophical claims that we have epistemic norms for assertion and action
|Keywords||Epistemic evaluation Will to believe Assertion agnosticism|
|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
John Hawthorne (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press.
Earl Conee & Richard Feldman (2004). Evidentialism. Oxford University Press.
John Hawthorne & Jason Stanley (2008). Knowledge and Action. Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):571-590.
Keith DeRose (2002). Assertion, Knowledge, and Context. Philosophical Review 111 (2):167-203.
Alvin Plantinga (1993). Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael J. Shaffer (2013). Doxastic Voluntarism, Epistemic Deontology and Belief-Contravening Commitments. American Philosophical Quarterly 50 (1):73-82.
Hamid Vahid (2010). Rationalizing Beliefs: Evidential Vs. Pragmatic Reasons. Synthese 176 (3):447-462.
Sinan Dogramaci (2012). Reverse Engineering Epistemic Evaluations. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (3):513-530.
Matthias Steup (2000). Doxastic Voluntarism and Epistemic Deontology. Acta Analytica 15 (1):25-56.
Mikkel Gerken (2012). Discursive Justification and Skepticism. Synthese 189 (2):373-394.
Scott Stapleford (2012). Epistemic Duties and Failure to Understand One's Evidence. Principia 16 (1):147-177.
Gregory Salmieri & Benjamin Bayer (2013). How We Choose Our Beliefs. Philosophia (1):1-13.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2011). How to Be a Teleologist About Epistemic Reasons. In Asbjorn Steglich-Petersen & Andrew Reisner (eds.), Reasons for Belief. Cambridge University Press 13--33.
Adam Kovach (2006). Epistemic Virtues and the Deliberative Frame of Mind. Social Epistemology 20 (1):105 – 115.
Catherine Z. Elgin (2008). Trustworthiness. Philosophical Papers 37 (3):371-387.
Georgi Gardiner (2012). Understanding, Integration, and Epistemic Value. Acta Analytica 27 (2):163-181.
Richard Pettigrew (2011). An Improper Introduction to Epistemic Utility Theory. In Henk de Regt, Samir Okasha & Stephan Hartmann (eds.), Proceedings of EPSA: Amsterdam '09. Springer 287--301.
Matthew Chrisman (2008). Ought to Believe. Journal of Philosophy 105 (7):346-370.
Added to index2011-03-30
Total downloads99 ( #39,235 of 1,792,869 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #138,883 of 1,792,869 )
How can I increase my downloads?