The No Guidance Argument

Theoria 79 (1):279-283 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In a recent article, I criticized Kathrin Glüer and Åsa Wikforss's so-called “no guidance argument” against the truth norm for belief, for conflating the conditions under which that norm recommends belief with the psychological state one must be in to apply the norm. In response, Glüer and Wikforss have offered a new formulation of the no guidance argument, which makes it apparent that no such conflation is made. However, their new formulation of the argument presupposes a much too narrow understanding of what it takes for a norm to influence behaviour, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of the truth norm. Once this is taken into account, it becomes clear that the no guidance argument fails
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Against Content Normativity.Glüer, Kathrin & Wikforss, Åsa
No Norm Needed: On the Aim of Belief.Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn
Weighing the Aim of Belief.Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn
Reasons for Belief.Reisner, Andrew & Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn (eds.)

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Still No Guidance: Reply to Steglich‐Petersen.Glüer, Kathrin & Wikforss, Åsa

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
585 ( #3,531 of 38,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #17,376 of 38,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.