DOCSLIB.ORG

Lehrer on Belief and Acceptance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lehrer on Belief and Acceptance LEHRER ON BELIEF AND ACCEPTANCE _______________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of San Diego State University _______________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Philosophy _______________ by Joshua Christian Cangelosi Summer 2016 iii Copyright © 2016 by Joshua Christian Cangelosi All Rights Reserved iv DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to Professor J. Angelo Corlett. Without his mentorship and teaching, neither this thesis nor my career in philosophy would have been possible. v “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.” –Socrates (Laws 667a) vi ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Lehrer on Belief and Acceptance by Joshua Christian Cangelosi Master of Arts in Philosophy San Diego State University, 2016 This thesis centers on Keith Lehrer’s seminal theory of knowledge, arguing that Lehrer’s acceptance condition of knowledge should be replaced with the traditional belief condition. Chapter One argues that Lehrer lacks good reason to condition knowledge on acceptance instead of belief, while Chapter Two argues that Lehrer has good reason to condition knowledge on belief instead of acceptance. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 1 BELIEF VERSUS DOXASTIC ACCEPTANCE: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE ........................................................................................2 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2 Belief Versus Doxastic Acceptance .........................................................................3 Epistemic Responsibility .......................................................................................12 Control .............................................................................................................13 Reasons-Responsiveness ..................................................................................20 Knowledge .............................................................................................................26 Conclusion of Chapter 1 ........................................................................................31 2 LEHRER ON THE REASONABLENESS OF ACCEPTANCE ................................33 Introduction ............................................................................................................33 The Reasonableness of Acceptance .......................................................................34 The Dilemma .........................................................................................................39 Conclusion of Chapter 2 ........................................................................................45 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................46 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................47 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to the readers on my panel for their time and comments, to the Department of Philosophy at San Diego State University for its superb philosophical training, to my mom for her unfailing support, and to my wife for her way of making life amazing. 1 INTRODUCTION In this thesis, I argue that Keith Lehrer’s acceptance condition of knowledge should be replaced with the traditional belief condition. Chapter One contends that Lehrer’s distinction between belief and doxastic acceptance is without much difference by contesting three assumptions that appear in large part to motivate this distinction: (1) the assumption that belief and doxastic acceptance are too different to be considered the same kind of mental state; (2) the assumption that because we are epistemically responsible only for the doxastic attitudes we control, we are not epistemically responsible for beliefs but only for acceptances; and (3) the assumption that acceptance, not belief, is the requisite doxastic attitude for knowledge. Absent further rational for the distinction, acceptance simply appears to be a sort of belief, and there is no reason for Lehrer to condition knowledge on acceptance instead of belief. Not only does Lehrer not have good reason to condition knowledge on acceptance instead of belief; he also has good reason to condition knowledge on belief instead of acceptance. Specifically, Chapter Two argues that Lehrer’s theory of knowledge faces the following dilemma: If acceptance entails justification, Lehrer’s justification condition of knowledge is superfluous; if acceptance does not entail justification, Lehrer’s acceptance condition superfluously replaces the traditional belief condition. Because Lehrer does not want to abandon the justification condition but maintain that acceptance does not entail justification, he has good reason to replace the acceptance condition of knowledge with the traditional belief condition. 2 CHAPTER 1 BELIEF VERSUS DOXASTIC ACCEPTANCE: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE INTRODUCTION In this chapter, I challenge Keith Lehrer’s distinction between belief and doxastic acceptance by contesting three assumptions that appear in large part to motivate this distinction: (1) the assumption that belief and doxastic acceptance are too different to be considered the same kind of mental state; (2) the assumption that because we are epistemically responsible only for the doxastic attitudes we control, we are not epistemically responsible for beliefs but only for acceptances; and (3) the assumption that acceptance, not belief, is the requisite doxastic attitude for discursive knowledge. By challenging these assumptions, I considerably reduce, if not eliminate, the motivation for adopting Lehrer’s distinction and, thus, place the onus of justifying this distinction back on those who maintain it. For I argue that, absent further rationale, Lehrer’s distinction is, at best, without much difference and, at worst, misleading insofar as it leads us to think that special doxastic attitudes called ‘acceptances’ are distinct from beliefs and requisite for epistemic responsibility and knowledge. I propose that, instead of adopting Lehrer’s distinction, we classify all doxastic attitudes as mental states within the general class of beliefs. Others can decide if they wish to jettison the category of doxastic acceptance (as I prefer) or preserve it as a subcategory of belief. More specifically, in response to (1), I argue that belief and doxastic acceptance are much more alike than belief and non-doxastic acceptance, and that the minimal differences between these doxastic attitudes can be accommodated by the class of beliefs. In response to (2), I clarify the relevant concept of epistemic responsibility and survey problems with an account of the control condition of such responsibility in terms of alternative doxastic 3 possibilities. Then I turn to a more promising account of the control condition: Conor McHugh’s (2013) epistemic guidance control account, which insightfully adapts John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza’s (1998) guidance control condition of moral responsibility to the analysis of epistemic responsibility.1 I support McHugh’s position that we can exercise epistemic guidance control central to epistemic responsibility not only of doxastic attitudes we actively form via considered judgment (which Lehrer classifies as acceptances) but also of doxastic attitudes we passively acquire via perception (which Lehrer classifies as beliefs).2 However, I deny McHugh’s claim that exercising epistemic guidance control of the latter attitudes requires the potential exercise of doxastic agency in the form of inquiry and judgment—denial which implies the possibility of epistemic responsibility without agency or acceptance.3 In response to (3), I argue that the possibility of exercising epistemic guidance control of passively acquired beliefs weakens the motivation for singling out actively formed doxastic attitudes under the label ‘acceptance’ as necessary for knowledge. BELIEF VERSUS DOXASTIC ACCEPTANCE Most of the literature contrasting belief and acceptance focuses on non-doxastic (or pragmatic) acceptance, which aims not at truth but at utility and is, thus, “a pragmatic notion, not a cognitive or theoretical one” (Engel 1998, 146).4 Lehrer’s distinction, however, is 1 C. McHugh, “Epistemic Responsibility and Doxastic Agency,” Philosophical Issues 23, no. 1 (2013): 245-269. 2 As McHugh writes, “You are responsible for beliefs formed in this way [automatically via perception sans inquiry], just as much as those that you have formed through conscious inquiry, or indeed reflective deliberation” (Ibid., 134, my explanation). See below for the manner in which Lehrer classifies doxastic attitudes. 3 Ibid., 134-135. 4 For the distinction between belief and pragmatic acceptance, see M. E. Bratman, “Practical Reasoning and Acceptance in a Context,” Mind 101, no. 401 (1992): 9; A. Buckareff, “Acceptance and Deciding to Believe,” Journal of Philosophical Research 29, (2004): 174-179; A. Buckareff, “Acceptance Does Not Entail Belief,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18, no. 2 (2010): 255; D. S. Clarke, “Does
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Responding to Skepticism About Doxastic Agency
    Erkenn (2018) 83:627–645 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-017-9906-2 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Responding to Skepticism About Doxastic Agency Miriam Schleifer McCormick1 Received: 16 April 2016 / Accepted: 9 May 2017 / Published online: 8 June 2017 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Abstract My main aim is to argue that most conceptions of doxastic agency do not respond to the skeptic’s challenge. I begin by considering some reasons for thinking that we are not doxastic agents. I then turn to a discussion of those who try to make sense of doxastic agency by appeal to belief’s reasons-responsive nature. What they end up calling agency is not robust enough to satisfy the challenge posed by the skeptics. To satisfy the skeptic, one needs to make sense of the possibility of believing for nonevidential reasons. While this has been seen as an untenable view for both skeptics and anti-skeptics, I conclude by suggesting it is a position that has been too hastily dismissed. 1 Introduction In what sense or to what extent is agency exercised in the doxastic realm? Some argue that the kind of control we have over beliefs is sufficient for doxastic agency, while others argue that the nature of beliefs precludes agency being exercised in what we believe. But getting clear on the nature of these disagreements is difficult because the disputants do not always share a common notion of what is required for agency in general, and doxastic agency in particular. A skeptic about doxastic agency may agree with everything an anti-skeptic says but insist that none of what is proposed counts as real agency.
    [Show full text]
  • A Social Solution to the Puzzle of Doxastic Responsibility: a Two-Dimensional Account of Responsibility for Belief
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Forthcoming in Synthese 1 A Social Solution to the Puzzle of Doxastic Responsibility: A Two-Dimensional Account of Responsibility for Belief Robert Carry Osborne (This is a final, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Synthese. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-020-02637-9) 1. Introduction There are various, well-known difficulties surrounding the notion of doxastic responsibility and the so-called ‘ethics of belief’. The “puzzle of doxastic responsibility,” as Miriam McCormick (2015) has recently called it, arises from the tension between some version of the following three claims, each intuitively plausible on its own, but together jointly inconsistent: (RESPONSIBLE) We sometimes rightly hold agents responsible for their doxastic attitudes. (CONTROL) Voluntary control over X is a prerequisite for responsibility for X. (NON-VOLUNTARY) Beliefs are not subject to the will, that is, we lack voluntary control over them.1 The puzzle, then, is why beliefs seem to be the kinds of things for which we can rightly be held responsible, and yet do not appear to be something over which we exercise direct (voluntary or intentional) control.2 A solution to the puzzle seems to require that we reject at least one of the three claims above. As a result, the puzzle has three general answers: (a) Reject (RESPONSIBLE) and thus deny that beliefs are the proper objects of normative assessment, and so deny that anyone 1 McHugh (2017) also discusses a version of the same puzzle, which he calls “the problem of epistemic responsibility,” though his version involves four claims, and depends explicitly on a comparison with the kind of control we have over our (bodily) actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Subjunctive Reasoning
    Subjunctive Reasoning John L. Pollock SUBJUNCTIVE REASONING PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES SERIES IN PHILOSOPHY Editors: WILFRIDSELLARS, University of Pittsburgh KEITHLEHRER, University of Arizona Board of Consulting Editors: JONATHANBENNETT, University of British Columbia ALANGIBBARD, University of Pittsburgh ROBERTSTALNAKER, Cornell University ROBERTG. TURNBULL,Ohio State University VOLUME 8 JOHN L. POLLOCK University of Rochester SUBJUNCTIVE REASONING D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY DORDRECHT-HOLLAND/BOSTON-U .S.A. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Pollock, John L Subjunctive reasoning. (Philosophical studies series in philosophy ; v. 8) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Conditionals (Logic) 2. Reasoning. 3. Counter- factuals (Logic) 4. Probabilities. I. Title. BC199.C56P64 160 76-19095 ISBN 90-277-0701 -4 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O.Box 17, Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Inc. Lincoln Building, 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, Mass. 02043, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Copyright @ 1976 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner Printed in The Netherlands TO CAROL who puts up with me TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE I. INTRODUCTION 1. Subjunctive Reasoning 2. The Linguistic Approach 3. The 'Possible Worlds' Approach 4. Conclusions Notes 11. FOUR KINDS OF CONDITIONALS 1. Introduction 2. The Four Kinds 3. 'Even if Subjunctives 4. 'Might Be' Conditionals 5. Necessitation Conditionals 6. Simple Subjunctives 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2015 Social Epistemology and the Project of Mapping Science Kamili Posey Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1097 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE PROJECT OF MAPPING SCIENCE BY KAMILI POSEY A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York. 2015 © 2015 KAMILI POSEY All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Nikolas Pappas ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ Date Executive Officer Samir Chopra ______________________________________________ Linda Alcoff ______________________________________________ Robert Sinclair ______________________________________________ Supervisory Committee THE
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Neal Manning Department of Philosophy University of South
    Richard Neal Manning Department of Philosophy University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, FA226 Tampa, Florida 33620-7926 [email protected] Academic appointments Permanent (tenure-track) appointments: Associate Professor, University of South Florida 2007-present Associate Professor, Carleton University 2000-2007 Assistant Professor, Carleton University 1998-2000 Assistant Professor, Ohio University 1995-98 Visiting faculty appointments: Visiting Associate Professor, Georgetown University 2002-2005 Visiting Associate Professor, The Johns Hopkins University Spring 2005 Visiting Associate Professor, University of Victoria Winter 2002 Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Oregon 1993-95 Lecturer, University of Pittsburgh 1992-93 Education Ph.D. (Philosophy) Northwestern University 1992 Dissertation: The Resurrection of Coherence (Arthur Fine, Director) J.D. Northwestern University School of Law 1985 B.A. (Philosophy) Northwestern University 1981 Research Areas Epistemology and Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Science, History of Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Art Publications Articles and book chapters: “First, Do No Harm”, Florida Philosophical Review (forthcoming Spring 2021) “Reflections on Davidsonian Semantic Publicity”, Protosociology 34, 2017 (forthcoming) “Is this a Truth-Maker which I See Before Me?”, forthcoming in Florida Philosophical Review 2 “Critical Notice: The Norm of Belief, by John Gibbons” (Oxford University Press), Analysis first published online August 7, 2015 doi:10.1093/analys/anv060
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    PETER D. KLEIN Home Address 72 Pine Grove Ave. Somerset, NJ 08873 Email: [email protected] Education Earlham College, B.A. 1962 Yale University, M.A., 1964, Ph.D. 1966 Employment Colgate University: Assistant Professor 1966-70 Rutgers University: Assistant Professor 1970-1973 Associate Professor 1973-1981 Professor, 1981-2016 Professor Emeritus, 2016-present Publications Books Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism, University of Minnesota Press, 1981, xiv + 242. (second printing, 1984) Ad Infinitum: New Essays on Epistemological Infinitism, co-edited with John Turri, Oxford University Press, 2014. Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem, co-edited with Claudio de Almeida and Rodrigo Borges, Oxford University Press, 2018. Xv + 414. Articles, Chapters in Books, Reviews and Other Items “The Private Language Argument and The Sense-Datum Theory,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 47.3, 1969, 325-343. “Are Strawson's Persons Immortal? - A Reply,” Philosophical Studies, 20.5, 1969, 65-69. 1 “A Proposed Definition of Propositional Knowledge,” Journal of Philosophy, 67.16, 1971, 471-482. Reprinted in: Knowing, M. Roth & L. Galis (eds.), University Press of America, l984; Knowledge and Justification, Ernest Sosa (ed), Ashgate Publishing Co., 1994; On Knowing and the Known, Ken Lucey (ed), Prometheus Books, 1996; Epistemology: An Anthology, J. Kim & E. Sosa & M. McGrath (eds.), Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies, 1999; Epistemology: Critical Concepts in Philosophy, R. Neta (ed.), 2012. “Knowledge, Causality and Defeasibility,” Journal of Philosophy, 73.20, 1976, 792-812. Review of David Armstrong's Belief, Truth and Knowledge, in Philosophical Review, 85.2, 1976, 225-227. “Misleading ‘Misleading Defeaters’,” Journal of Philosophy, 76.7, 1979, 382-386.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Going to Deal with the Foundations of First Philosophy in Its Entirety
    FOUNDATIONALISM & THE STRUCTURE OF EPISTEMIC WARRANT I am going to deal with the foundations of First Philosophy in its entirety. —Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy The basics of foundationalism Foundationalism is the classic view regarding the nature of warranted belief acceptance, non-acceptance and the suspending of judgement. It has been advocated by such historically significant philosophers as Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Reid, and Kant as well as such significant contemporaries as A.J. Ayer, C.I. Lewis and Roderick Chisholm. It has been the subject of serious philosophical attacks by such prominent philosophers as Donald Davidson, Keith Lehrer, Laurence Bonjour and Richard Rorty.1 What is foundationalism, however? Given that foundationalism is a theory about the nature of epistemic warrant, it should be clear that it is a normative theory—i.e., it tells us when we are warranted, reasonable, or permitted to assent, not assent or suspend judgment regarding a proposition. How does it differ from the internalist and externalist views of epistemic warrant we have been discussing? Most importantly, it tells us about the structure of epistemically warranted doxastic attitudes. That is, it tells us how our epistemically warranted doxastic attitudes are related to each other. Put differently, it tells us that every member of a cognitive being’s set of doxastic attitudes is organized and formally related in very important ways. What is that organization and formal relation? According to the foundationalist, genuine (propositional) knowledge and epistemically warranted belief has a two-tier structure: some instances of our knowledge and epistemically warranted belief are foundational and every other instance is non-foundational.
    [Show full text]
  • Questions for Uniqueness (3408 Words)
    1 Questions for Uniqueness (3408 words) Abstract: In this paper, I argue that the so-called Uniqueness Thesis, or Uniqueness, is untenable because we cannot conceive of epistemic rationality as free of any practical components. Uniqueness states that given the same body of evidence, there is at most one rational doxastic attitude taken towards any proposition. Some authors, on the other hand, argue that it is rationally permissible to hold differing doxastic attitudes; call that view Permissivism. First, I provide a precise formulation for Uniqueness and evaluate some of the arguments for and against it. I show that many extant arguments against Uniqueness are question-begging and why these arguments fail. Finally, I offer a better argument against Uniqueness. My argument brings out that rational belief is not determined solely by evidence but also by the questions that guide one’s inquiry. 1. Introduction Given the same body of evidence, is it rational to possess differing doxastic attitudes towards a certain proposition? Some authors argue that it is permissible; call that Permissivism. Others oppose this view and argue for the so-called Uniqueness Thesis, or Uniqueness, which states that for agents with the same body of total evidence, there is at most one rational doxastic attitude taken towards any proposition. What I argue is that Uniqueness is untenable because we cannot conceive of epistemic rationality as free of any practical components. Although arguments have been provided for and against Uniqueness based on practical grounds, these arguments treat doxastic attitudes similarly with bodily actions. The practical component that I discuss here, on the other hand, is restricted to knowledge, i.e., how one inquires.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    CURRICULUM VITAE James O. Young, FRSC Department of Philosophy University of Victoria P.O. Box 1700, STN CSC Victoria, B.C. Canada, V8W 2Y2 Telephone: (1) 250 721 7509; Fax: (1) 250 721 7511 e-mail: [email protected] Degrees: B.A. (First Class Hons.), Simon Fraser University, May 1979 M.A., University of Waterloo, June 1981 Ph.D., Boston University, January 1985 Academic Positions: Professor, University of Victoria (1999-present) Senior Visiting Fellow, Durham University (2018) Visiting Scholar, Universidad de Murcia (2018) Associate Professor, University of Victoria (1991-99) Assistant Professor, University of Victoria (1985-91) Research Fellow, University of Melbourne (1987-88) Lecturer, University of Calgary (1984-85) Monographs: History of Western Philosophy of Music. Under contract with Cambridge University Press. Radically Rethinking Copyright in the Arts. New York and London: Routledge, 2020. Filosofía de la Música. Respuestas a Peter Kivy. Logroño: Calanda, 2017. Critique of Pure Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Cultural Appropriation and the Arts. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. James O. Young Curriculum Vitae 2 Paperback edition, 2009. Chinese translation forthcoming. Art and Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Chronicle of Higher Education featured New Scholarly Book. Korean translation, Seoul National University Press, 2013. Arabic translation, National Center for Translation (Egypt), forthcoming Global Anti-realism. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995. Translations: Jean-Baptiste Du Bos: Critical Reflections on Poetry and Painting. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Forthcoming from Brill. (Co-translator and co-author: Margaret Cameron) Charles Batteux: The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle. Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes Beyond Belief: a Theory of Non-Doxastic Attitude Formation and Evaluation
    Attitudes Beyond Belief: A Theory of Non-Doxastic Attitude Formation and Evaluation by Daniel Drucker A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy) in the University of Michigan 2017 Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Eric Swanson, Chair Associate Professor Ezra Russell Keshet Associate Professor Sarah Swanson Moss Professor Brian James Weatherson Daniel Drucker [email protected] ORCID iD 0000-0001-6075-1170 ©Daniel Drucker 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’ll be brief; there’s no way to fully express my gratitude here. So, thank you to Eric Swanson for being the best possible committee chair, conscientious, empathetic, and wise; to Sarah Moss, for the intense and challenging conversations that always left me wanting to be and do better; to Brian Weatherson, for showing the importance of a view of the whole of philosophy; and to Ezra Keshet, for his generosity and example(s). Thanks to Michigan’s (sometimes honorary) philosophers, who’ve been my friends and family for six years, including: Chloe, Sara, Boris, Dave, Gordon, Kevin, Mara, Paul, Bryan, Francesca, Sarah B., Victor, Lingxi, Mercy, Guus, Alex, Matt, Josh, Sydney, Zoe,¨ Jim, Maria, Ishani, Eduardo, Neil, Filipa, Adam, Cat, Alvaro, Chip, Steve, Umer, Patrick, Nils, Rohan, Jamie, Rich, Damian, Nina, and Elise. It’s incredible that this kind of community exists; I’m unspeakably lucky to have been a part of it. The proof of this is how impossible it feels to leave it. Thanks to Plato and Agnes Callard, who shaped my worldview in ways I still don’t fully understand. Thanks to Hakeem Jerome Jefferson, one of the only non-philosophers on the list, for teaching me as much as any philosopher could.
    [Show full text]
  • Belief Without Credence
    Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-0846-6 Belief without credence J. Adam Carter1 · Benjamin W. Jarvis2 · Katherine Rubin3 Received: 14 May 2014 / Accepted: 31 July 2015 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract One of the deepest ideological divides in contemporary epistemology con- cerns the relative importance of belief versus credence. A prominent consideration in favor of credence-based epistemology is the ease with which it appears to account for rational action. In contrast, cases with risky payoff structures threaten to break the link between rational belief and rational action. This threat poses a challenge to traditional epistemology, which maintains the theoretical prominence of belief. The core prob- lem, we suggest, is that belief may not be enough to register all aspects of a subject’s epistemic position with respect to any given proposition. We claim this problem can be solved by introducing other doxastic attitudes—genuine representations—that dif- fer in strength from belief. The resulting alternative picture, a kind of doxastic states pluralism, retains the central features of traditional epistemology—most saliently, an emphasis on truth as a kind of objective accuracy—while adequately accounting for rational action. Keywords Belief · Rational action · Cognitive achievement · Contextualism · Truth · Virtue epistemology B J. Adam Carter [email protected] Benjamin W. Jarvis [email protected] Katherine Rubin [email protected] 1 University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 2 New York University, Stern School of Business, New York, NY, USA 3 Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA 123 Synthese Introduction Consider the following case: car insurance: Your car insurance company offers you a deal.
    [Show full text]