Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 15, pp 2981–2999 | Cite as

A Non-factualist defense of the Reflection principle

Article
  • 150 Downloads

Abstract

Are there plausible synchronic constraints on how a subject thinks of herself extended over time? At first glance, Bas van Fraassen’s principle of Reflection seems to prescribe the sort of epistemic authority one’s future self should be taken by one to have over one’s current epistemic states. (The gist of this principle is that I should now believe what I’m convinced I will believe tomorrow.) There has been a general consensus that, as a principle concerning epistemic authority, Reflection does not apply to epistemically non-ideal agents. I agree with this, but argue here that it misses the point of Reflection. Rather than an epistemic principle concerning reasons for belief, Reflection concerns the semantics of belief avowal. I present a non-factual interpretation of Reflection, argue that the principle provides a constraint on the ways in which one can reflectively endorse one’s future epistemic self, and say something about the logic governing such an interpretation.

Keywords

Reflection principle Nonfactualism van Fraassen Rational requirement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armendt B. (1992) Dutch strategies for diachronic rules: When believers see the sure loss coming. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 217–229Google Scholar
  2. Arnzenius F., Elga A., Hawthorne J. (2004) Bayesianism, infinite decisions, and binding. Mind 113(450): 251–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovens L. (1995) ‘P and I will believe that not-P’: Diachronic constraints on rational belief. Mind 104: 737–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broome J. (2000) Normative requirements. In: Dancy J. (ed) Normativity. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 78–99Google Scholar
  5. Broome J. (2004) Reasons. In: Wallace R. J., Pettit P., Scheffler S., Smith M. (eds) Reason and value. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 28–55Google Scholar
  6. Broome J. (2007) Wide or narrow scope?. Mind 116(462): 359–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen D. (1991) Clever bookies and coherent beliefs. Philosophical Review 100(2): 229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen D. (1996) Dutch-book arguments depragmatized: Epistemic consistency for partial believers. The Journal of Philosophy 93(9): 450–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elga A. (2000) Self-locating belief and the sleeping beauty problem. Analysis 60(2): 143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evnine S. J. (2007) Personhood and future belief: Two arguments for something like Reflection. Erkenntnis 67: 91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foley R. (1994) How should future opinion affect current opinion?. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54(4): 747–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foley R. (2001) Intellectual trust in oneself and others. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hild M. (1998a) The coherence argument against conditionalization. Synthese 115: 229–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hild M. (1998b) Auto-epistemology and updating. Philosophical Studies 92: 321–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeffrey R. (1988) Conditioning, kinematics and exchangeability. In: Skyrms B., Harper W. L. (eds) Causation, chance, and credence. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolodny N. (2005) Why be rational?. Mind 114: 509–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de dicto and de se. The philosophical review 88: 513–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loewer B., Belzer M. (1983) Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese 54: 295–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maher P. (1992) Diachronic rationality. Philosophy of Science 59: 120–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plantinga A. (1993) Warrant: The current debate. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Fraassen B. C. (1984) Belief and the will. Journal of Philosophy 81: 235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Fraassen B. C. (1985) Empiricism in the philosophy of science. In: Curchland P. M., Hooker C. A. (eds) Images of science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. van Fraassen B. C. (1993). Rationality does not require conditionalization. In Ullmann-Margalit E. (ed.) The Israel colloquium studies in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. (Vol. 5). Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  24. van Fraassen B. C. (1995) Belief and the problem of Ulysses and the sirens. Philosophical Studies 77(1): 7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weisberg J. (2007) Conditionalization, reflection, and self-knowledge. Philosophical Studies 135(2): 179–197Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBarnard College, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations