scholarly journals An Infinitist Account of Doxastic Justification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Turri

Any satisfactory epistemology must account for the distinction between propositional and doxastic justification. This paper advances a new infinitist account of the distinction.

Author(s):  
Kurt Sylvan ◽  
Ernest Sosa

This chapter defends a middle ground between two extremes in the literature on the place of reasons in epistemology. Against members of the “reasons first” movement, we argue that reasons are not the sole grounds of epistemic normativity. We suggest that the virtue-theoretic property of competence is rather the key building block. To support this approach, we note that reasons must be possessed to ground central epistemic properties, and argue that possession is grounded in competence. But while we here diverge with reasons-firsters, we also distance ourselves from those who deem reasons unimportant. Indeed, we hold that having sufficient epistemic reasons is necessary and sufficient for propositional justification, and that proper basing on them yields doxastic justification. But since possession and proper basing are grounded in competence, reasons are not the end of the road: competence enables them to do their work, putting them—and us—in the middle.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107-137
Author(s):  
Sven Rosenkranz

Drawing on the results of previous chapters, the proposal is made to interpret the complex operator ⌜¬K¬K⌝ as encoding propositional justification and the complex operator ⌜¬K¬K⌝ as encoding doxastic justification—where in each case justification is understood to be justification all things considered. Accordingly, not only propositional but also doxastic justification is construed as a feature of one’s epistemic situation rather than a feature of one’s beliefs. On this view, both types of justification are non-factive. The proposed account is defended against a number of putative counterexamples, the allegation that it confuses epistemic permissibility with epistemic blamelessness, and the charge that it fails to heed plausible reliabilist constraints on justification. At crucial junctures this defence relies on the availability of theorems governing the aforementioned complex operators that were proved in chapter 5.


Erkenntnis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Schulz

AbstractThis paper studies degrees of doxastic justification. Dependency relations among different beliefs are represented in terms of causal models. Doxastic justification, on this picture, is taken to run causally downstream along appropriate causal chains. A theory is offered which accounts for the strength of a derivative belief in terms of (i) the strength of the beliefs on which it is based, and (ii) the epistemic quality of the belief-forming mechanisms involved. It is shown that the structure of degrees of justification converges to ranking theory under ideal conditions.


Author(s):  
Ralph Wedgwood

A concept that can be expressed by the term ‘rationality’ plays a central role in both epistemology and ethics—especially in formal epistemology and decision theory. It is argued here that when the term is used in this way, it expresses the concept of a kind of virtue, that has the central features that are ascribed to virtues by Plato and Aristotle, among others. Like other virtues, rationality comes in degrees. Just as Aristotle distinguished ‘just acts’ from acts that ‘manifest the virtue of justice’, we can distinguish the ‘abstract rationality’ from the manifestation of rational dispositions; this is the best account of the distinction between ‘propositional’ and ‘doxastic justification’. This approach also helps us to understand the relations between ‘rationality’ and ‘rational requirements’, and to answer further objections to the thesis that ‘rationality’ is a normative concept that are based on the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document