Belief and cognitive limitations

Philosophical Studies 172 (1):249-260 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
A number of philosophers have argued that it is hard for finite agents like us to reason and make decisions relying solely on our credences and preferences. They hold that for us to cope with our cognitive limitations, we need binary beliefs as well. For they think that such beliefs, by disposing us to treat certain propositions as true, help us cut down on the number of possibilities we need to consider when we reason. But using Ross and Schroeder as my stalking horse, I argue that such an appeal to binary beliefs does not work. I begin by explaining why there’s supposedly a problem for an account of reasoning that invokes only credences and preferences. I then argue that Ross and Schroeder’s account of belief—as well as other similar accounts—does not help solve the problem. Finally, I consider an alternative approach to solving the problem. This approach, unlike the accounts I criticise, does not hold that having a disposition to treat a proposition as true is necessary for believing it
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-12-25
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Belief, Credence, and Pragmatic Encroachment1.Jacob Ross & Mark Schroeder - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):259-288.
Outright Belief.Wedgwood, Ralph

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
198 ( #15,559 of 40,645 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
44 ( #13,251 of 40,645 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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