Fragmentation and Old Evidence

Bayesian confirmation theory is our best formal framework for describing inductive reasoning. The problem of old evidence is a particularly difficult one for confirmation theory, because it suggests that this framework fails to account for central and important cases of inductive reasoning and scientific inference. I show that we can appeal to the fragmentation of doxastic states to solve this problem for confirmation theory. This fragmentation solution is independently well-motivated because of the success of fragmentation in solving other problems. I also argue that the fragmentation solution is preferable to other solutions to the problem of old evidence. These other solutions are already committed to something like fragmentation, but suffer from difficulties due to their additional commitments. If these arguments are successful, Bayesian confirmation theory is saved from the problem of old evidence, and the argument for fragmentation is bolstered by its ability to solve yet another problem.

Explicating the concept of epistemic rationality

A characterization of epistemic rationality, or epistemic justification, is typically taken to require a process of conceptual clarification, and is seen as comprising the core of a theory of (epistemic) rationality. I propose to explicate the concept of rationality. It is essential, I argue, that the normativity of rationality, and the purpose, or goal, for which the particular theory of rationality is being proposed, is taken into account when explicating the concept of rationality. My position thus amounts to an instrumentalist position about theories of epistemic rationality. Since there are different purposes, or goals, for which theories of rationality are proposed, the method of explication leaves room for different characterizations of rationality. I focus on two such (kinds of) purposes: first, the purpose of guiding the formation (or maintenance) of doxastic states and, second, the purpose of assessing (the formation or maintenance of) doxastic states. I conclude by outlining a pluralistic picture concerning rationality.

Comparativism and the Measurement of Partial Belief

According to comparativism, degrees of belief are reducible to a system of purely ordinal comparisons of relative confidence. (For example, being more confident that P than that Q, or being equally confident that P and that Q.) In this paper, I raise several general challenges for comparativism, relating to (1) its capacity to illuminate apparently meaningful claims regarding intervals and ratios of strengths of belief, (2) its capacity to draw enough intuitively meaningful and theoretically relevant distinctions between doxastic states, and (3) its capacity to handle common instances of irrationality.

Higher-Order Defeat and Evincibility

Does ‘higher-order evidence’ that one’s belief is rationally flawed defeat its status as rational (as justified, as knowledge)? Such a view is committed to two claims. First, it is possible to acquire misleading evidence about the normative status of one’s doxastic states. Second, such evidence has defeating force with respect to the belief. My aim is to do two things. First, I outline a view I call normative evincibility, according to which one always has a kind of epistemic access to the normative status of one’s doxastic states (intentions, actions, etc.). I show how commitment to higher-order defeat incurs a commitment to a form of normative evincibility. Second, I argue that the idea that it is possible to acquire misleading evidence about the normative status of one’s doxastic states is in tension with evincibility. Hence, there is a deep tension inherent in views committed to defeat by higher-order evidence.

Intuitions and Conceptual Analysis in Wittgensteinian Pragmatism

The nature of intuitions remains a contested issue in (meta-)philosophy. Yet, intuitions are frequently cited in philosophical work, featuring most prominently in conceptual analysis, the philosophical method par excellence. In this paper, we approach the question about the nature of intuitions based on a pragmatist, namely, Wittgensteinian account of concepts. To Wittgenstein, intuitions are just immediate ‘reactions’ to certain cognitive tasks. His view provides a distinct alternative to identifying intuitions with either doxastic states or quasi-perceptual experiences. We discuss its implications for intuitions’ role in conceptual analysis and show that a Wittgensteinian account of intuitions is compatible even with ambitious metaphysical projects traditionally associated with this method.

Assertion and transparent self-knowledge

We argue that honesty in assertion requires non-empirical knowledge that what one asserts is what one believes. Our argument proceeds from the thought that to assert honestly, one must follow and not merely conform to the norm ‘Assert that p only if you believe that p’. Furthermore, careful consideration of cases shows that the sort of doxastic self-knowledge required for following this norm cannot be acquired on the basis of observation, inference, or any other form of detection of one's own doxastic states. It is, as we put it, transparent rather than empirical self-knowledge.

Know-How and Acts of Faith

The topic of this chapter is the nature of faith. When we have faith, we perform acts of faith: we share our secrets, rely on other’s judgment, refrain from going through our partner’s emails, and so on. Religious faith is also manifested in acts of faith: attending worship, singing the liturgy, fasting, embarking on a pilgrimage. Drawing on an analogy in moral philosophy between morally admirable actions and the nature of virtue, the chapter argues that examining what makes a given action an act of faith can tell us about the nature of faith: faith is a complex mental state whose elements go beyond doxastic states towards particular propositions. It also involves conative states and, perhaps more surprisingly, know-how. This has consequences for the epistemology of faith: the role of testimony and experts, the importance of practices, and what we should make of Pascal’s advice for how to acquire faith.

PRÉCIS AND REPLIES TO CONTRIBUTORS FOR BOOK SYMPOSIUM ON ACCURACY AND THE LAWS OF CREDENCE

ABSTRACTThis book symposium on Accuracy and the Laws of Credence consists of an overview of the book’s argument by the author, Richard Pettigrew, together with four commentaries on different aspects of that argument. Ben Levinstein challenges the characterisation of the legitimate measures of inaccuracy that plays a central role in the arguments of the book. Julia Staffel asks whether the arguments of the book are compatible with an ontology of doxastic states that includes full beliefs as well as credences. Fabrizio Cariani raises concerns about the argument offered in the book for various chance-credence principles. And Sophie Horowitz questions the assumptions at play in the book’s argument for the Principle of Indifference, as well as asking how the various laws of credence considered in the book relate to one another.

ACCURACY FOR BELIEVERS

ABSTRACTIn Accuracy and the Laws of Credence Richard Pettigrew assumes a particular view of belief, which states that people don't have any other doxastic states besides credences. This is in tension with the popular position that people have both credences and outright beliefs. Pettigrew claims that such a dual view of belief is incompatible with the accuracy-first approach. I argue in this paper that it is not. This is good news for Pettigrew, since it broadens the appeal of his framework.