Authors
Kate Nolfi
University of Vermont
Abstract
Epistemic evaluation is often appropriately prescriptive in character because believers are often capable of exercising some kind of control—call it doxastic control—over the way in which they regulate their beliefs. An intuitively appealing and widely endorsed account of doxastic control—the immediate causal impact account—maintains that a believer exercises doxastic control when her judgments about how she ought to regulate her beliefs in a particular set of circumstances can cause the believer actually to regulate her beliefs in those circumstances as she judges she ought to. I show here that the immediate causal impact account is ultimately untenable. Nevertheless, the immediate causal impact account gets something important about the nature of doxastic control right: exercising doxastic control involves being such that one’s conception of ideal belief regulation somehow shapes the way in which one actually regulates one’s beliefs. Thus, I develop here an alternative account according to which, insofar as she exercises doxastic control, a believer’s conception of ideal belief regulation shapes the way in which she actually believes by exerting causal power directly on her dispositions to regulate her beliefs in certain ways. I defend this alternative against other competitors by showing that it can be extended to supply a unified account of rational control that explains why evaluation with respect to the various different norms of rationality that govern the way in which we form, revise and sustain not only our beliefs, but also our intention, hopes, fears, etc. is often appropriately prescriptive.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2014
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1080/0020174X.2014.858418
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,464
External links

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

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Mind and World.John McDowell - 1994 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Doxastic Deliberation.Nishi Shah & J. David Velleman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (4):497-534.
Responsibility for Believing.Pamela Hieronymi - 2008 - Synthese 161 (3):357-373.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Epistemic Blame.Cameron Boult - 2021 - Philosophy Compass 16 (8):e12762.
Biological Function and Epistemic Normativity.Ema Sullivan-Bissett - 2017 - Philosophical Explorations 20 (1):94-110.
Conceptual Ethics and The Methodology of Normative Inquiry.David Plunkett & Tristram McPherson - 2020 - In Alexis Burgess, Herman Cappelen & David Plunkett (eds.), Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 274-303.
Why is Warrant Normative?Peter J. Graham - 2019 - Philosophical Issues 29 (1):110-128.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Normative and Prescriptive Implications of Individual Differences.Jonathan Baron - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):668-669.
Other–Regarding Epistemic Virtues.Jason Kawall - 2002 - Ratio 15 (3):257–275.
Reducible and Nonsensical Uses of Game Theory.Boudewijn de Bruin - 2008 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (2):247-266.
Epistemic Utility and the Evaluation of Experiments.Isaac Levi - 1977 - Philosophy of Science 44 (3):368-386.
Modest Deontologism in Epistemology.Richard Feldman - 2008 - Synthese 161 (3):339 - 355.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-18

Total views
97 ( #122,123 of 2,520,436 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,718 of 2,520,436 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes