Repository | Zeitschrift | Band | Artikel
Rationalizing beliefs
evidential vs. pragmatic reasons
pp. 447-462
Abstrakt
Beliefs can be evaluated from a number of perspectives. Epistemic evaluation involves epistemic standards and appropriate epistemic goals. On a truth-conducive account of epistemic justification, a justified belief is one that serves the goal of believing truths and avoiding falsehoods. Beliefs are also prompted by non-epistemic reasons. This raises the question of whether, say, the pragmatic benefits of a belief are able to rationalize it. In this paper, after criticizing certain responses to this question, I shall argue that, as far as beliefs are concerned, justification has an essentially epistemic character. This conclusion is then qualified by considering the conditions under which pragmatic consequences of a belief can be epistemically relevant.
Publication details
Published in:
(2010) Synthese 176 (3).
Seiten: 447-462
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9575-z
Referenz:
Vahid Hamid (2010) „Rationalizing beliefs: evidential vs. pragmatic reasons“. Synthese 176 (3), 447–462.