Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Defending Shah’s Evidentialism from his Pragmatist Critics: the Carnapian Link

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Contemporary Pragmatism

In an important 2006 paper, Nishi Shah defends ‘evidentialism’, the position that only evidence for a proposition’s truth constitutes a reason to believe this proposition. In opposition to Shah, Anthony Robert Booth, Andrew Reisner and Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen argue that things other than evidence of truth, so-called non-evidential or ‘pragmatic’ reasons, constitute reasons to believe a proposition. I argue that we can effectively respond to Shah’s pragmatist critics if, following Shah, we are careful to distinguish the evaluation of the reasons for a belief from the process of actually forming a belief and allowing it to influence action. Drawing this distinction is assisted if we utilize Rudolf Carnap’s probabilistic interpretation of what it means to be disposed to believe a claim.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Philosophy, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5, Canada, r.hudson@usask.ca

10.1163/18758185-01302002
/content/journals/10.1163/18758185-01302002
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18758185-01302002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Betz Gregor. 2013. “"In Defence of the Value Free Ideal",” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science Vol 3: 207220.
2. Booth Anthony Robert. 2008. “"A New Argument for Pragmatism?",” Philosophia Vol 36: 227231.
3. Booth Anthony Robert. 2014. “"Two Reasons Why Epistemic Reasons Are Not Object-Given Reasons",” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol 89: 114.
4. Carnap Rudolf. 1946. “"Remarks on Induction and Truth",” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol 6: 590602.
5. Carnap Rudolf. 1968. “"On Rules of Acceptance",” in The Problem of Inductive Logic , ed. Imre Lakatos (Amsterdam, North-Holland), pp. 146150.
6. Carnap Rudolf. 1971. “"Inductive Logic and Rational Decisions",” in Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability , Volume Vol 1, ed. Rudolf Carnap and Richard Jeffrey (Los Angeles: University of California Press), pp. 531.
7. Derksen Elena. 2013. “"Reasons to Believe",” paper presented to the Western Canadian Philosophical Association, October 19, 2013, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
8. Douglas Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal , Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9. Douglas Heather. 2000. “"Inductive Risk and Values in Science",” Philosophy of Science Vol 67: 559579.
10. Gaa James. C. 1977. “"Moral Autonomy and the Rationality",” Philosophy of Science Vol 44: 513541
11. Jeffrey Richard C. 1956. “"Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses",” Philosophy of Science Vol 22: 237246.
12. Jeffrey Richard C. 1983. The Logic of Decision . 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Levi Issac. 1960. “"Must the Scientist Make Value Judgments?",” Journal of Philosophy Vol 57:345357.
14. Mitchell Sandra D. 2004. "“The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy”", in Science, Values, and Objectivity , ed. Gereon Wolters and Peter Machamer (Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press), pp. 245255.
15. Moran Richard. 1988. “"Making Up Your Mind: Self-Interpretation and Self-Constitution",” Ratio Vol 1: 135151.
16. Parfit Derek,. 2001. “"Reasons and Rationality"”, in Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values , ed. Egonsson Dan,, Petersson Björn,, Joselfsson Jonas, and Rønnow-Rasmussen Toni (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 1739.
17. Reisner Andrew. 2009. “"The Possibility of Pragmatic Reasons for Belief and the Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem",” Philosophical Studies Vol 145: 257272.
18. Rudner Richard S. 1953. “"The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments",” Philosophy of Science Vol 20: 1–6.
19. Shah Nishi. 2003. “"How Truth Governs Belief",” The Philosophical Review Vol 112: 447482.
20. Shah Nishi 2006. “"A New Argument for Evidentialism",” The Philosophical Quarterly Vol 56:481498.
21. Steglich-Petersen Asbjørn. 2008. “"Does Doxastic Transparency Support Evidentialism?",” Dialectica Vol 62: 541547.
22. Williams Bernard. 1981. “"Internal and External Reasons",” in his Moral Luck (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), pp. 101113.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/18758185-01302002
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18758185-01302002
2016-07-15
2018-06-23

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Contemporary Pragmatism — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation