Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 169, Issue 2, pp 285–311 | Cite as

Belief, credence, and norms

  • Lara Buchak
Article

Abstract

There are currently two robust traditions in philosophy dealing with doxastic attitudes: the tradition that is concerned primarily with all-or-nothing belief, and the tradition that is concerned primarily with degree of belief or credence. This paper concerns the relationship between belief and credence for a rational agent, and is directed at those who may have hoped that the notion of belief can either be reduced to credence or eliminated altogether when characterizing the norms governing ideally rational agents. It presents a puzzle which lends support to two theses. First, that there is no formal reduction of a rational agent’s beliefs to her credences, because belief and credence are each responsive to different features of a body of evidence. Second, that if our traditional understanding of our practices of holding each other responsible is correct, then belief has a distinctive role to play, even for ideally rational agents, that cannot be played by credence. The question of which avenues remain for the credence-only theorist is considered.

Keywords

Belief Credence Probability Lockean view Statistical evidence Reactive attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Matt Benton, Lindsey Crawford, Julien Dutant, Jane Friedman, Julian Jonker, Matthew Lee, Jennifer Nagel, Ted Poston, Jada Twedt Strabbing, and Jonathan Weisberg for comments on earlier versions of this paper. I would also like to thank Sherri Roush’s graduate seminar, Robert Audi’s graduate seminar, the philosophers at Leeds, and participants in Epistemology Above the Arctic Circle (sponsored by the Oslo Center for the Study of Mind and Nature) and the Harvard Workshop on Belief for helpful discussions of earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Bernoulli, D. (1954/1738). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36.Google Scholar
  2. Bonjour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, D. (2004). Putting logic in its place: Formal constraints on rational belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, L. J. (1977). The probable and the provable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colyvan, M., Cox, D., & Steele, K. (2010). Modelling the moral dimension of decisions. Noûs, 44(3), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colyvan, M., Regan, H. M., & Ferson, S. (2001). Is it a crime to belong to a reference class? Journal of Political Philosophy, 9(2), 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douven, I. (2003). Nelkin on the lottery paradox. Philosophical Review, 112(3), 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Douven, I. (2006). Assertion, knowledge, and rational credibility. Philosophical Review, 115(4), 449–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douven, I., & Williamson, T. (2006). Generalizing the lottery paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 7(4), 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dreier, J. (1996). Rational preference: Decision theory as a theory of practical rationality. Theory and Decision, 40, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enoch, D., Spectre, L., & Fisher, T. (2012). Statistical evidence, sensitivity, and the legal value of knowledge. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 40, 197–224.Google Scholar
  12. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2002). Evidence, pragmatics, and justification. The Philosophical Review, 111(1), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2010). Belief. In Chapter 5 of Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fermat, P., & Pascal, B. (1654). Letters, collected as ‘Fermat and pascal on probability’ and translated from the French by Professor Vera Sanford, by A source book in mathematics, pp. 546–565, by D. Smith, Ed., 1929, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Frankish, K. (2009). Partial belief and flat-out belief. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (Eds.), Degrees of belief. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, J. (2013). Rational agnosticism and degrees of belief. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 4, Chap. 3, pp. 57–82).Google Scholar
  17. Hájek, A. (2003). Waging war on Pascal’s Wager. Philosophical Review, 112(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hájek, A. (ms.). Staying regular.Google Scholar
  19. Harsanyi, J. C. (1985). Acceptance of empirical statements: A Bayesian theory without cognitive utilities. Theory and Decision, 18(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hawthorne, J., & Stanley, J. (2011). Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 571–590.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, M. (1996). Decision theory as philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyburg, H. E. (1961). Probability and the logic of rational belief. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Maher, P. (1993). The concept of acceptance. In Chapter 6 of betting on theories. Cambridge studies in probability, induction, and decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Moss, S. (2013). Epistemology formalized. Philosophical Review, 122(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelkin, D. (2000). The lottery paradox, knowledge, and rationality. Philosophical Review, 109(3), 373–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nesson, C. (1985). The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review, 98(7), 1357–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pettigrew, R. (2011). Epistemic utility arguments for probabilism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/epistemic-utility/.
  29. Pollock, J. L. (1990). Nomic probability and the foundations of induction. Oxford.Google Scholar
  30. Ramsey, F. (1926). Truth and probability. (Reprinted from The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, by R. B. Braithwaite, Ed., 1950, New York: The Humanities Press.)Google Scholar
  31. Redmayne, M. (2008). Exploring the proof paradoxes. Legal Theory, 14, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ross, J., & Schroeder, M. (2012). Belief, credence, and pragmatic encroachment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81, 525–548.Google Scholar
  33. Ryan, S. (1991). The preface paradox. Philosophical Studies, 64, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Savage, L. (1954/1972). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover. (First published in 1954, New York, Wiley.)Google Scholar
  35. Schauer, F. (2003). Profiles, probabilities, and stereotyping. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  36. Spites, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (1993). Causation, prediction, and search. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strawson, P. F. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48(1962), 1–25.Google Scholar
  39. Sturgeon, S. (2008). Reason and the grain of belief. Nous, 42(1), 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomson, J. J. (1986). Liability and individualized evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Fraassen, B. C. (1995). Fine-grained opinion, probability, and the logic of full belief. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 349–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weatherson, B. (2005). Can we do without pragmatic encroachment? Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations