Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T13:02:21.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

JAMESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY FORMALISED: AN EXPLICATION OF ‘THE WILL TO BELIEVE’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2015

Richard Pettigrew
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Famously, William James held that there are two commandments that govern our epistemic life: Believe truth! Shun error! In this paper, I give a formal account of James' claim using the tools of epistemic utility theory. I begin by giving the account for categorical doxastic states – that is, full belief, full disbelief, and suspension of judgment. Then I will show how the account plays out for graded doxastic states – that is, credences. The latter part of the paper thus answers a question left open in Pettigrew (2014).

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 253 - 268
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Buchak, L. 2014. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clifford, W. K. 1877. ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ Contemporary Review, 29: 289–309.Google Scholar
de Finetti, B. 1974. Theory of Probability, Volume 1. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. Forthcoming. ‘Dr Truthlove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bayesian Probabilities.’ Noûs. doi: 10.1111/nous.12099.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. and Fitelson, B. Forthcoming. ‘Accuracy, Coherence, and Evidence.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 5.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. ms. Coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greaves, H. and Wallace, D. 2006. ‘Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility.’ Mind, 115: 607–32.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. 1962. ‘Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation.’ In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III, pp. 98–169. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
James, W. 1896. ‘The Will to Believe.’ The New World, 5: 327–47.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. 1998. ‘A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.’ Philosophy of Science, 65: 575–603.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. M. 2009. ‘Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 263–97. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Konek, J. Forthcoming. ‘Epistemic Conservativity and Imprecise Credence.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Levi, I. 1967. Gambling with Truth. New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. 2014. ‘Accuracy, Risk, and the Principle of Indifference.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12097.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. ms. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Predd, J., Seiringer, R., Lieb, E. H., Osherson, D., Poor, V., and Kulkarni, S. 2009. ‘Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules.’ IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, 55: 4786–92.Google Scholar