Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-gwv8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-09T01:27:47.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Don’t stop believing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Jennifer Rose Carr
Jennifer Rose Carr*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign–Urbana, IL, USA
*
Email: jrcarr@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It’s been argued that there are no diachronic norms of epistemic rationality. These arguments come partly in response to certain kinds of counterexamples to Conditionalization, but are mainly motivated by a form of internalism that appears to be in tension with any sort of diachronic coherence requirements. I argue that there are, in fact, fundamentally diachronic norms of rationality. And this is to reject at least a strong version of internalism. But I suggest a replacement for Conditionalization that salvages internalist intuitions, and carves a middle ground between (probabilist versions of) conservatism and evidentialism.

Keywords

Epistemologyconditionalizationdiachronic normsevidentialismevidence

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 5-6: Special Issue: Belief, Action, and Rationality over Time , December 2015 , pp. 744 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arntzenius, Frank. 2003. “Some Problems for Conditionalization and Reflection.” The Journal of Philosophy 100 (7): 356–370.Google Scholar
Berker, Selim. 2013. “The Rejection of Epistemic Consequentialism.” Philosophical Issues 23 (1): 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, Rachael. (manuscript) “An Accuracy-dominance Argument for Conditionalization.”Google Scholar
Carr, Jennifer. (manuscript) “How to Expect When You’re Expecting.”Google Scholar
Christensen, David. 2000. “Diachronic Coherence versus Epistemic Impartiality.” Philosophical Review 109 (3): 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Jane. (manuscript) “Inquiry and Belief.”Google Scholar
Greaves, Hilary, and Wallace, David. 2006. “Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility.” Mind 115 (459): 607–632.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1986. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hedden, Brian. 2013. “Options and Diachronic Tragedy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1): 423–451.Google Scholar
Hedden, Brian. 2015. “Time-slice Rationality.” Mind 124 (494): 449–491.Google Scholar
James, William. 1896. ”;The Sentiment of Rationality”. In The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, 63–110. Norwood, MA: Synthèse.Google Scholar
Joyce, James. 1998. “A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.” Philosophy of Science 65 (4): 575–603.10.1086/392661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, James, Franz, Huber and Christoph, Schmidt-Petri, eds. 2009. ”;Accuracy and coherence: Prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial belief”. Vol. 342, In Degrees of Belief, New York: Synthese, Springer, 263–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, Niko , and MacFarlane, John. 2010. “Ifs and Oughts.” The Journal of Philosophy 107 (3): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, Hannes, and Pettigrew, Richard. 2010. “An Objective Justification of Bayesianism: The Consequences of Minimizing Inaccuracy.” Philosophy of Science 77 (2): 236–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, Matthew. 2007. “Memory and Epistemic Conservatism.” Synthese 157 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Meacham, Chris. (Forthcoming) “Understanding Conditionalization.” Vol. I.Google Scholar
Meacham, Christopher J.G., Tamar Szabo, Gendler, John, Hawthorne, eds. 2010. ”;Unravelling the tangled web: Continuity, internalism, non-uniqueness and self-locating beliefs”. Vol. 3, In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 86–125. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moss, Sarah. 2014. “Credal Dilemmas.” Noûs 48 (3): 665–683.Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. 1981. Foundations and Applications of Inductive Probability, Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Wolfgang. 2012. Worms first! in defence of diachronic rationality, Wollongong: Unpublished AAP talkGoogle Scholar
Talbott, W. J. 1991. “Two Principles of Bayesian Epistemology.” Philosophical Studies 62 (2): 135–150.10.1007/BF00419049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, Michael. 2006. ”;Comments on greaves & wallace”. In Pacific APA,Google Scholar
Robert, J. and Williams, G.. (manuscript) “A Nonpragmatic Dominance Argument for Conditionalization.”Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar