Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-hfbn9 Total loading time: 0.429 Render date: 2021-06-14T18:29:05.037Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Article contents

A Defense of Intrapersonal Belief Permissivism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2019

Elizabeth Jackson
Affiliation:
Australian National University and Ryerson University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Permissivism is the view that there are evidential situations that rationally permit more than one attitude toward a proposition. In this paper, I argue for Intrapersonal Belief Permissivism (IaBP): that there are evidential situations in which a single agent can rationally adopt more than one belief-attitude toward a proposition. I give two positive arguments for IaBP; the first involves epistemic supererogation and the second involves doubt. Then, I show how these arguments give intrapersonal permissivists a distinct response to the toggling objection. I conclude that IaBP is a view that philosophers should take seriously.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Ballantyne, N. and Coffman, E.J. (2011). ‘Uniqueness, Evidence, and Rationality.’ Philosophers’ Imprint 11, 113.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, N. and Coffman, E.J. (2012). ‘Conciliationism and Uniqueness.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90, 657–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berker, S. (2018). ‘A Combinatorial Argument against Practical Reasons for Belief.’ Analytic Philosophy 59, 427–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, M. (1986). ‘Moral and Epistemic Saints.’ Metaphilosophy 17(2/3), 102–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, A. and Bundy, A. (2012). ‘On ‘Epistemic Permissiveness’.’ Synthese 188, 165–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J.A. (2017). ‘Virtuous Insightfulness.’ Episteme 14(4), 539–54.10.1017/epi.2016.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review 116, 187217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2016). ‘Conciliation, Uniqueness and Rational Toxicity.’ Noûs 50(3), 584603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daoust, M.K. (2017). ‘Epistemic Uniqueness and the Practical Relevance of Epistemic Practices.’ Philosophia 45(4), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlback, M. (Forthcoming). ‘Infinitely Permissive.’ Erkenntnis. https://www.academia.edu/20402399/Infinitely_Permissive.Google Scholar
Decker, J. (2012). ‘Disagreement, Evidence, and Agnosticism.’ Synthese 187, 753–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dogramaci, S. and Horowitz, S. (2016). ‘An Argument for Uniqueness about Evidential Support.’ Philosophical Issues 26(1), 130–47.10.1111/phis.12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I. (2009). ‘Uniqueness Revisited.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 46, 347–61.Google Scholar
Drake, J. (2017). ‘Doxastic Permissiveness and the Promise of Truth.’ Synthese 194, 4897–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. (2002). ‘Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification.’ Philosophical Review 111(1), 6794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. (2010). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2000). ‘The Ethics of Belief.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60(3), 667–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2006). ‘Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 216–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2007). ‘Reasonable Religious Disagreement.’ In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers Without God, pp. 197214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, D. and Hedden, B. (2016). ‘Uniqueness and Metaepistemology.’ Journal of Philosophy 113(8), 365–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2003). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, T. (2014). ‘Epistemic Supererogation and its Implications.’ Synthese 191(15), 3621–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedden, B. (2015 a). ‘Time-Slice Rationality.’ Mind 124, 449–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedden, B. (2015 b). Reasons Without Persons: Rationality, Identity, and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732594.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard-Snyder, D. (2013). ‘Propositional Faith: What it is and What it is Not.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 50(4), 357–72.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. (2014). ‘Immoderately Rational.’ Philosophical Studies 167, 4156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, S. (2019). ‘The Truth Problem for Permissivism.’ Journal of Philosophy 116(5), 237–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. (Forthcoming a). ‘Belief and Credence: Why the Attitude-Type Matters.’ Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1136-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. (Forthcoming b). ‘Belief, Credence, and Evidence.’ Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01965-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. (2019). ‘How Belief-Credence Dualism Explains Away Pragmatic Encroachment.’ Philosophical Quarterly 69(276), 511–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqz006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, E. and Turnbull, M. (Forthcoming). ‘Permissivism, Underdetermination, and Evidence.’ In Littlejohn, C. and Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (eds), The Routledge Handbook for the Philosophy of Evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jung, J. (2016). ‘Conservatism and Uniqueness.’ Philosophical Studies 173(8), 2233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, J. (2017). ‘Steadfastness, Deference, and Permissive Rationality.’ Synthese 194, 5093–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2002). ‘The Rationality of Belief and Some Other Propositional Attitudes.’ Philosophical Studies 110(2), 163–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2013). ‘Evidence can be Permissive.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 298311. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2017). ‘Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology.’ Philosophy Compass 2,114.Google Scholar
Kopec, M. (2015). ‘A Counterexample to the Uniqueness Thesis.’ Philosophia 43, 403–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopec, M. and Titelbaum, M. (2016). ‘The Uniqueness Thesis.’ Philosophy Compass 11(4), 189200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. (2013). ‘Conciliationism without Uniqueness.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 88, 161–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2014). ‘The Stability Theory of Belief.’ In Philosophical Review 123(2), 131–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2015). ‘The Humean Thesis on Belief.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society of Philosophy 89(1), 143–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2017). The Stability of Belief. How Rational Belief Coheres with Probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198732631.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinstein, B. (2015). ‘Permissive Rationality and Sensitivity.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 94(2), 342–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. (2019). ‘How Supererogation Can Save Intrapersonal Permissivism.’ American Philosophical Quarterly 56(2), 171–86.Google Scholar
Matheson, J. (2011). ‘The Case for Rational Uniqueness.’ Logos & Episteme 2, 359–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meacham, C. (2014). ‘Impermissive Bayesianism.’ Erkenntnis 79, 1185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meacham, C. (2019). ‘Deference and Uniqueness.’ Philosophical Studies 176(3), 709–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElwee, B. (2016). ‘Supererogation Across Normative Domains.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95(3), 505–16.10.1080/00048402.2016.1253760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, A. 2017. ‘The Nature of Doubt and a New Puzzle About Belief, Doubt, and Confidence.’ Synthese 195(4), 1827–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, D. (2014). ‘Dangers of Pragmatic Virtue.’ Inquiry 57(5–6), 623–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peels, R and Booth, A. (2014). ‘Why Responsible Belief Is Permissible Belief.’ Analytic Philosophy 55, 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podgorski, A. (2016). ‘Dynamic Permissivism.’ Philosophical Studies 173, 1923–39.10.1007/s11098-015-0585-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raleigh, T. (2015). ‘An Argument for Permissivism from Safespots.’ In van der Hoek, W. (ed.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction, pp. 308–15. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raleigh, T. (2017). ‘Another Argument Against Uniqueness.’ Philosophical Quarterly 67(267), 327–46.Google Scholar
Roche, W. and Sober, E. (2013). ‘Explanatoriness is Evidentially Irrelevant, or Inference to the Best Explanation meets Bayesian Confirmation Theory.’ Analysis 73(4), 659–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeber, B. (Forthcoming). ‘Permissive Situations and Direct Doxastic Control.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, L. (2012). ‘Justification and the Uniqueness Thesis.’ Logos & Episteme 3, 571–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. (2001). ‘Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism.’ Philosophical Perspectives 15, 6991.Google Scholar
Ross, J. and Schroeder, M. (2014). ‘Belief, Credence, and Pragmatic Encroachment.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88(2), 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, K. (2015). ‘Total Pragmatic Encroachment and Epistemic Permissiveness.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96, 1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2014). ‘Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism Is True and What It Tells Us About Irrelevant Influences on Belief.’ Noûs 48, 193218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (Forthcoming). ‘Permissivism and the Value of Rationality: A Challenge to the Uniqueness Thesis.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2012). ‘Stakes, Withholding, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies 160(2), 265–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultheis, G. (2018). ‘Living on the Edge: Against Epistemic Permissivism.’ Mind 127(504), 863–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharadin, N. (2015). ‘A Partial Defense of Permissivism.’ Ratio 30(1), 5771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R.M. (2017). ‘Permissivism and the Arbitrariness Objection.’ Episteme 14, 519–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleford, S. (2013). ‘Imperfect Epistemic Duties and the Justificational Fecundity of Evidence.’ Synthese 190(18), 4065–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleford, S. (2015). ‘Why There May be Epistemic Duties.’ Dialogue 54(1), 6389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleford, S. (Forthcoming). ‘Intraspecies Impermissivism.’ Episteme. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorstad, D. (Forthcoming). ‘Permissive Metaepistemology.’ Mind. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidman, P. (1996). ‘Critical Reflection: An Alleged Epistemic Duty.’ Analysis 56(4), 268–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. (2010). ‘Not Enough There There: Evidence, Reasons, and Language Independence.’ Philosophical Perspectives 24, 477528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M.G. and Kopec, M. (2019). ‘When Rational Reasoners Reason Differently.’ In Balcerak-Jackson, M. and Balcerak-Jackson, B. (eds), Reasoning: Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking, pp. 205–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. (Forthcoming). ‘Could've Thought Otherwise.’ Philosopher's Imprint. https://jonathanweisberg.org/pdf/CTO.pdf.Google Scholar
White, R. (2005). ‘Epistemic Permissiveness.’ Philosophical Perspectives 19, 445–59.10.1111/j.1520-8583.2005.00069.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2007). ‘Epistemic Subjectivism.’ Episteme 4, 115–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2013). ‘Evidence Cannot Be Permissive.’ In Steup, M., Turri, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 312–23. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. (2004). Bayesian Nets and Causality: Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, J. (2010). In Defense of Objective Bayesianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williard-Kyle, C. (2017). ‘Do Great Minds Really Think Alike?Synthese 194, 9891026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2018). ‘Belief as Question-Sensitive.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 97(1), 2347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Defense of Intrapersonal Belief Permissivism
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Defense of Intrapersonal Belief Permissivism
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Defense of Intrapersonal Belief Permissivism
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *