Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):243-269 (2013)

Authors
Thomas Raleigh
United Arab Emirates University
Abstract
I defend the thesis that beliefs are constitutively normative from two kinds of objection. After clarifying what a “blindspot” proposition is and the different types of blindspots there can be, I show that the existence of such propositions does not undermine the thesis that beliefs are essentially governed by a negative truth norm. I argue that the “normative variance” exhibited by this norm is not a defect. I also argue that if we accept a distinction between subjective and objective norms there need be no worrying tension between doxastic norms of truth and doxastic norms of evidence. I show how a similar approach applies to the attitude of guessing. I then suggest that if we distinguish between practical and theoretical rationality, we will prefer a negative form of norm that does not positively oblige us to form beliefs. I finish by considering an alternative possible subjunctive form of norm that would also avoid problems with blindspots but suggest this has a non-intuitive consequence.
Keywords Epistemology  Philosophy of Mind  Normativity  Rationality  Normative Variance  Epistemic Norms  Aiming at Truth
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013
DOI 10.1111/sjp.12015
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Doxastic Deliberation.Nishi Shah & J. David Velleman - 2005 - Philosophical Review 114 (4):497-534.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Philosophy 76 (297):460-464.
How Truth Governs Belief.Nishi Shah - 2003 - Philosophical Review 112 (4):447-482.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Normativity of Belief.Conor McHugh & Daniel Whiting - 2014 - Analysis 74 (4):698-713.
Should I believe all the truths?Alexander Greenberg - 2020 - Synthese 197 (8):3279-3303.
No, One Should Not Believe All Truths.Anandi Hattiangadi - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (9-10):1091-1103.
An Investigation of Norm of Belief’s Proper Formulation.Seyyed Ali Kalantari - 2017 - Journal of Philosophical Investigations at University of Tabriz 11 (21):69-74.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Aim of Belief.Ralph Wedgwood - 2002 - Philosophical Perspectives 16:267-97.
Epistemology Without Metaphysics.Hartry Field - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 143 (2):249 - 290.
The Truth Norm of Belief.Conor Mchugh - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):8-30.
Thoughts and Oughts.Mason Cash - 2008 - Philosophical Explorations 11 (2):93 – 119.
Intention Rationality.Michael E. Bratman - 2009 - Philosophical Explorations 12 (3):227-241.
Epistemic Relativism and Reasonable Disagreement.Alvin I. Goldman - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 187-215.
Incorrigible Norms: Foundationalist Theories of Normative Authority.Linda Radzik - 2000 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):633-649.
Aesthetic Testimony and the Norms of Belief Formation.Jon Robson - 2015 - European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):750-763.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-02-02

Total views
467 ( #12,337 of 2,331,147 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #9,873 of 2,331,147 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes