Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-sw5dq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-03T02:41:28.619Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English

Continuing on

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Michael G. Titelbaum
Michael G. Titelbaum*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
*
Email: titelbaum@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What goes wrong, from a rational point of view, when an agent’s beliefs change while her evidence remains constant? I canvass a number of answers to this question suggested by recent literature, then identify some desiderata I would like any potential answer to meet. Finally, I suggest that the rational problem results from the undermining of reasoning processes (and possibly other epistemic processes) that are necessarily extended in time.

Keywords

Reasoningbeliefconsistencyrationalitydiachronic
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 5-6: Special Issue: Belief, Action, and Rationality over Time , December 2015 , pp. 670 - 691
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 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

Arpaly, N. 2000. “On Acting Rationally Against One’s Best Judgment.” Ethics 110: 488–513.10.1086/233321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, N., and Coffman, E.. 2012. “Conciliationism and Uniqueness.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90: 657–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 2010. “Agency, Time, and Sociality.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association 84: 7–26.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 2012. “Time, Rationality, and Self-governance.” Philosophical Issues 22: 73–88.10.1111/j.1533-6077.2012.00219.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 2013. Rationality through Reasoning. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. M. 1976. “Conditionalization and Expected Utility.” Philosophy of Science 43: 415–419.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. 2007. “Reasonable Religious Disagreements.” In Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, edited by Antony, L. M., 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrero, L. 2012. “Diachronic Constraints of Practical Rationality.” Philosophical Issues 22: 144-164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, H., and Wallace, D.. 2006. “Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility.” Mind 115: 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedden, B. 2015. “Time-slice Rationality.” Mind 124: 449–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, R. 2008. Willing, Wanting, Waiting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. 2014. “Evidence may be Permissive”. In Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, edited by Steup, M., Turri, J., and Sosa, E., 298–311. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. ( Forthcoming). “Historical versus Current Time Slice Theories of Epistemic Justification”. In Goldman and His Critics, edited by Kornblith, H. and McLaughlin, B.. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kopec, M. 2015. “A Counterexample to the Uniqueness Thesis.” Philosophia 43: 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopec, M. (Forthcoming). “A Pluralistic account of Epistemic Rationality.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. 2009. Self-constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. 2014. “Impermissive Bayesianism.” Erkenntnis 79: 1185–1217.Google Scholar
Moss, S. 2015. “Time-slice Epistemology and Action Under Indeterminacy”. In Oxford Studies in Epistemology, edited by Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J., Vol. 5, 172–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, S. K. 2015. “Doxastic Self-control.” American Philosophical Quarterly 52: 145–158.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. 2014. “Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism is True and What it Tells us About Irrelevant Influences on Belief.” Noûs 48: 193–218.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2007. Slaves of the Passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. 1973. “Conditionalization and Observation.” Synthese 26: 218–258.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. 2010. “Not Enough There There: Evidence, Reasons, and Language Independence.” Philosophical Perspectives 24: 477–528.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. 2013. Quitting Certainties: A Bayesian Framework Modeling Degrees of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G., and Kopec, M.. (Forthcoming). “Plausible Permissivism.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
White, R. 2005. “Epistemic Permissiveness.” Philosophical Perspectives 19: 445–459.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar