David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 190 (16):3535-3551 (2013)
In this paper I am concerned with the question of whether degrees of belief can figure in reasoning processes that are executed by humans. It is generally accepted that outright beliefs and intentions can be part of reasoning processes, but the role of degrees of belief remains unclear. The literature on subjective Bayesianism, which seems to be the natural place to look for discussions of the role of degrees of belief in reasoning, does not address the question of whether degrees of belief play a role in real agents’ reasoning processes. On the other hand, the philosophical literature on reasoning, which relies much less heavily on idealizing assumptions about reasoners than Bayesianism, is almost exclusively concerned with outright belief. One possible explanation for why no philosopher has yet developed an account of reasoning with degrees of belief is that reasoning with degrees of belief is not possible for humans. In this paper, I will consider three arguments for this claim. I will show why these arguments are flawed, and conclude that, at least as far as these arguments are concerned, it seems like there is no good reason why the topic of reasoning with degrees of belief has received so little attention
|Keywords||Reasoning Degrees of belief Harman Probability|
No categories specified
(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 Broome (2013). Rationality Through Reasoning. Wiley-Blackwell.
Mike Oaksford & Nick Chater (2007). Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning. OUP Oxford.
Keith Frankish & Jonathan St B. T. Evans (eds.) (2009). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
Gilbert Harman (1986). Change in View. MIT Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Ulf Hlobil (forthcoming). Chains of Inferences and the New Paradigm in the Psychology of Reasoning. Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-16.
Justin M. Dallmann (2014). A Normatively Adequate Credal Reductivism. Synthese 191 (10):2301-2313.
Similar books and articles
Franz Huber (2009). Belief and Degrees of Belief. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of Belief. Springer
Lina Eriksson & Alan Hájek (2007). What Are Degrees of Belief? Studia Logica 86 (2):185-215.
Franz Huber (2005). Subjective Probabilities as Basis for Scientific Reasoning? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (1):101-116.
Christopher S. Hill & Joshua Schechter (2007). Hawthorne's Lottery Puzzle and the Nature of Belief. Philosophical Issues 17 (1):1020-122.
Jane Friedman (2013). Rational Agnosticism and Degrees of Belief. Oxford Studies in Epistemology 4:57.
J. Williamson (2006). From Bayesianism to the Epistemic View of Mathematics: Review of R. Jeffrey, Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. [REVIEW] Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):365-369.
Jonathan Weisberg (2013). Knowledge in Action. Philosophers' Imprint 13 (22).
James Hawthorne (2009). The Lockean Thesis and the Logic of Belief. In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of Belief. Synthese Library: Springer 49--74.
Brad Armendt (2010). Stakes and Beliefs. Philosophical Studies 147 (1):71 - 87.
Guy Politzer & Laure Carles (2001). Belief Revision and Uncertain Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 7 (3):217 – 234.
Christian Piller (2001). Normative Practical Reasoning. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75 (1):175 - 216.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2007). 'In Between Believing' and Degrees of Belief. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 26 (1):131-137.
Franz Huber (2003). Degrees of Belief as Basis for Scientific Reasoning? In W. Loeffler & P. Weingartner (eds.), Knowledge and Belief. Papers of the 26th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Kirchberg
David Christensen (1996). Dutch-Book Arguments Depragmatized: Epistemic Consistency for Partial Believers. Journal of Philosophy 93 (9):450-479.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2009). Degree of Belief is Expected Truth Value. In Sebastiano Moruzzi & Richard Dietz (eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Vaguenesss, its Nature and its Logic. Oxford University Press 491--506.
Added to index2012-10-27
Total downloads82 ( #41,037 of 1,725,989 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #50,975 of 1,725,989 )
How can I increase my downloads?