REASONS FOR REASONS

Episteme ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baron Reed
Keyword(s):  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Social Agents ◽  
Hilary Kornblith

ABSTRACTHilary Kornblith explores the prospects for reasons eliminationism, the view that reasons ought not to be regarded as being of central importance in epistemology. I reply by conceding that reasons may not be necessary for knowledge, in at least some cases, but I argue that they are nevertheless vitally important in epistemology more broadly. Their importance stems from being necessary, not for knowledge but for us, given that we are social agents with practical concerns. In that sense, we have (social and practical) reasons for (having a practice of giving and receiving epistemic) reasons.

scholarly journals An Instrumentalist Account of How to Weigh Epistemic and Practical Reasons for Belief

Mind ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 129 (516) ◽  
pp. 1071-1094
Author(s):  
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen ◽  
Mattias Skipper
Keyword(s):  
Combinatorial Problem ◽  
Good News ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
Combinatorial Properties ◽  
Epistemic Instrumentalism ◽  
Added Benefit ◽  
Instrumental Reasons

Abstract When one has both epistemic and practical reasons for or against some belief, how do these reasons combine into an all-things-considered reason for or against that belief? The question might seem to presuppose the existence of practical reasons for belief. But we can rid the question of this presupposition. Once we do, a highly general ‘Combinatorial Problem’ emerges. The problem has been thought to be intractable due to certain differences in the combinatorial properties of epistemic and practical reasons. Here we bring good news: if we accept an independently motivated version of epistemic instrumentalism—the view that epistemic reasons are a species of instrumental reasons—we can reduce The Combinatorial Problem to the relatively benign problem of how to weigh different instrumental reasons against each other. As an added benefit, the instrumentalist account can explain the apparent intractability of The Combinatorial Problem in terms of a common tendency to think and talk about epistemic reasons in an elliptical manner.

Teleological Reasons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas W. Portmore
Keyword(s):  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Reasons For Action ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
In Virtue Of ◽  
Do So

A teleological reason to φ is a reason to φ in virtue of the fact that φ-ing would either itself promote a certain end or is appropriately related to something else that would promote that end. And teleological reasons divide into direct and the indirect kinds, depending on whether the first or second of these two disjuncts applies. Thus, supposing that our end is to maximize utility, the fact that my killing one to save two would maximize utility is a direct teleological reason for me to do so, whereas the fact that my killing one to save two is prohibited by the code of rules whose universal acceptance would maximize utility is an indirect teleological reason for me to refrain from doing so. This chapter discusses various types of reasons, such as epistemic reasons (that is, reasons to believe), and whether all, some, or none of them are teleological. The chapter pays particularly close attention to the issue of whether all practical reasons (that is, reasons for action) are teleological.

The Unity of Reasons

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Reasons For Action ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
Special Case

This chapter is concerned with the question of what unifies reasons for action and reasons for belief, sometimes called practical and epistemic reasons. According to some views, reasons for belief are a special case of reasons to do something, and so epistemic reasons are a special case, very broadly speaking, of practical reasons. According to other views, reasons for action are a special case of reasons to draw some conclusion, and so practical reasons are a special case of epistemic reasons. This chapter considers some of the evidence that bears on whether either of these claims is correct, or whether instead practical and epistemic reasons have something else in common.

The Value-First Account and the Unity of the Normative

2019 ◽  
pp. 38-54
Author(s):  
Richard Rowland
Keyword(s):  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Normativity ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
The Way

The Value-First Account (VFA) analyses reasons for pro-attitudes in terms of goodness or value. This chapter makes an argument against VFA. It argues that epistemic reasons for belief should not be analysed in terms of value. But it argues that if epistemic reasons should not be analysed in terms of value but reasons for pro-attitudes should be analysed in terms of value, then epistemic reasons for belief cannot be instances of the very same relation as reasons for pro-attitudes. And this chapter argues that we should hold that epistemic reasons for belief are instances of the very same relation as practical reasons. So, we should reject VFA because it is inconsistent with the way in which epistemic normativity relates to practical normativity.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Andreas Müller
Keyword(s):  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
First Order ◽  
Constructivist View

The introduction sets the stage for what follows. Constructivism is presented as a position that seeks to explain why some considerations are reasons for or against certain actions. It thus disagrees with fundamentalist views which deny that a general, yet informative explanation of this kind is available. Constructivism also differs from Humean views that offer such an explanation in terms of the agent’s actual or hypothetical desires. By contrast, constructivism suggests that reasons can be explained as an upshot of our capacity to reason. The introduction also highlights that the constructivist view to be developed in the book is a meta-ethical, rather than a first-order normative position, and that it offers an account only of practical reasons, leaving, e.g., epistemic reasons aside.

scholarly journals On the Satisfiability Threshold of Random Community-Structured SAT

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Barak-Pelleg ◽  
Daniel Berend
Keyword(s):  
Computer Science ◽  
Boolean Satisfiability ◽  
Satisfiability Problem ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Boolean Satisfiability Problem

For both historical and practical reasons, the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) has become one of central importance in computer science. One type of instances arises when the clauses are chosen uniformly randomly \textendash{} random SAT. Here, a major problem, recently solved for sufficiently large clause length, is the satisfiability threshold conjecture. The value of this threshold is known exactly only for clause length $2$, and there has been a lot of research concerning its value for arbitrary fixed clause length. In this paper, we endeavor to study the satisfiability threshold for random industrial SAT. There is as yet no generally accepted model of industrial SAT, and we confine ourselves to one of the more common features of industrial SAT: the set of variables consists of a number of disjoint communities, and clauses tend to consist of variables from the same community. Our main result is that the threshold of random community-structured SAT tends to be smaller than its counterpart for random SAT. Moreover, under some conditions, this threshold even vanishes.

The Game of Belief

2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Maguire ◽  
Jack Woods
Keyword(s):  
Functional Role ◽  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Standard ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
Important Sense

It is plausible that there is a distinctively epistemic standard of correctness for belief. It is also plausible that there is a range of practical reasons bearing on belief. These theses are often thought to be in tension with each other. To resolve the tension, the authors draw on an analogy with a similar distinction between types of reasons for actions in the context of activities. This motivates a two-level account of the structure of normativity. The account relies upon a further distinction between normative reasons and authoritatively normative reasons. Only the latter constitutively play the functional role of explaining what state one just plain ought to be in. The authors conjecture that all and only practical reasons are authoritative. Hence, in one important sense, all reasons for belief are practical reasons. But this account also preserves the autonomy and importance of epistemic reasons.

The Range of Reasons

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Whiting
Keyword(s):  
Normative Reasons ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Epistemic Reasons ◽  
Reasons For Action ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Reasons For Belief ◽  
First Order ◽  
Underlying Principle ◽  
Comprehensive Framework ◽  
Order Commitment

This book contributes to two debates and it does so by bringing them together. The first is a debate in metaethics concerning normative reasons, the considerations that serve to justify a person’s actions and attitudes. The second is a debate in epistemology concerning the norms for belief, the standards that govern a person’s beliefs and by reference to which they are assessed. The book starts by developing and defending a new theory of reasons for action, that is, of practical reasons. The theory belongs to a family that analyses reasons by appeal to the normative notion of rightness (fittingness, correctness); it is distinctive in making central appeal to modal notions, specifically, that of a nearby possible world. The result is a comprehensive framework that captures what is common to and distinctive of reasons of various kinds: justifying and demanding; for and against, possessed and unpossessed; objective and subjective. The framework is then generalized to reasons for belief, that is, to epistemic reasons, and combined with a substantive, first-order commitment, namely, that truth is the sole right-maker for belief. The upshot is an account of the various norms governing belief, including knowledge and rationality, and the relations among them. According to it, the standards to which belief is subject are various, but they are unified by an underlying principle.

Behavioral Assessment of Social Interactions in Natural Settings

1996 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Santoyo
Keyword(s):  
Social Skills ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Behavioral Assessment ◽  
Behavioral Observation ◽  
Social Responsiveness ◽  
Social Agents ◽  
Social Effectiveness ◽  
Natural Settings

The present paper deals with behavioral assessment of social interaction in natural settings. The design of observational systems that allow the identification of the direction, contents, quality and social agents involved in a social interchange is an aim of social interaction assessment and research. In the first part a description of a system of behavioral observation of social interaction is presented. This system permits the identification of the above mentioned aspects. Secondly a strategy for the behavioral assessment of social skills is described. This strategy is based on the consequences and effects of social interaction, and it is supported by three basic processes: social effectiveness, social responsiveness and reciprocity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document