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

in Contemporary Pragmatism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

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.

Sections

References

BetzGregor. 2013. “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal,” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3: 207220.

BoothAnthony Robert. 2008. “A New Argument for Pragmatism?,” Philosophia 36: 227231.

BoothAnthony Robert. 2014. “Two Reasons Why Epistemic Reasons Are Not Object-Given Reasons,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89: 114.

CarnapRudolf. 1946. “Remarks on Induction and Truth,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 6: 590602.

CarnapRudolf. 1968. “On Rules of Acceptance,” in The Problem of Inductive Logic, ed. Imre Lakatos (Amsterdam, North-Holland), pp. 146150.

CarnapRudolf. 1971. “Inductive Logic and Rational Decisions,” in Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume 1, ed. Rudolf Carnap and Richard Jeffrey (Los Angeles: University of California Press), pp. 531.

DerksenElena. 2013. “Reasons to Believe,” paper presented to the Western Canadian Philosophical Association, October 19, 2013, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

DouglasHeather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

DouglasHeather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science,” Philosophy of Science 67: 559579.

GaaJames. C. 1977. “Moral Autonomy and the Rationality,” Philosophy of Science 44: 513541

JeffreyRichard C. 1956. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses,” Philosophy of Science 22: 237246.

JeffreyRichard C. 1983. The Logic of Decision. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

LeviIssac. 1960. “Must the Scientist Make Value Judgments?,” Journal of Philosophy 57:345357.

MitchellSandra 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.

MoranRichard. 1988. “Making Up Your Mind: Self-Interpretation and Self-Constitution,” Ratio 1: 135151.

ParfitDerek. 2001. “Reasons and Rationality”, in Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values, ed. EgonssonDan, PeterssonBjörn, JoselfssonJonas and Rønnow-RasmussenToni (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 1739.

ReisnerAndrew. 2009. “The Possibility of Pragmatic Reasons for Belief and the Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem,” Philosophical Studies 145: 257272.

RudnerRichard S. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.

ShahNishi. 2003. “How Truth Governs Belief,” The Philosophical Review 112: 447482.

ShahNishi 2006. “A New Argument for Evidentialism,” The Philosophical Quarterly 56:481498.

Steglich-PetersenAsbjørn. 2008. “Does Doxastic Transparency Support Evidentialism?,” Dialectica 62: 541547.

WilliamsBernard. 1981. “Internal and External Reasons,” in his Moral Luck (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), pp. 101113.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 13 13 7
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0