Week 2 Flashcards
What is the main question explored in the paper? - Thomas Kelly
Can the expected consequences of holding a belief affect whether it is rational to hold that belief?
What are the two main ways beliefs are evaluated?
Epistemically – Based on evidence, justification, and truth.
Practically – Based on the consequences of holding the belief.
What is the difference between epistemic and practical rationality?
Epistemic rationality: A belief is rational if supported by evidence
Practical rationality: A belief is rational if it leads to good outcomes.
Can practical considerations influence belief formation?
- Yes, but indirectly.
- Example: If believing in oneself improves performance, an athlete may try to adopt that belief.
What is Pascal’s Wager?
- Blaise Pascal argued that believing in God is rational because the expected utility (eternal salvation) outweighs the risks
How does Kelly respond to Pascal’s Wager?
Practical benefits might motivate actions (e.g., religious rituals) but do not directly justify beliefs
What is the “basing relation” in epistemology?
- A belief is rationalized by the reason it is based on.
- Example: If I believe today will be bad because my horoscope says so, the belief is not rational, even if evidence later supports it.
Can beliefs be based on practical considerations?
- No, beliefs can only be based on epistemic reasons.
- Actions, however, can be based on practical considerations.
What is the “Consequentialist Mistake”?
- The wrong assumption that beliefs are rational because of their good consequences rather than their evidence
Example: Thinking scientists are rational because they hold productive beliefs, rather than because their beliefs are well-supported.
What is the role of “self-manipulation” in belief formation?
- People indirectly shape beliefs by changing their epistemic environment (e.g., seeking out positive evidence).
- Example: A person immerses themselves in religious practices to develop faith.
How do other propositional attitudes (desires, regrets, fears) relate to belief rationality?
Similar issue: Just because regret, fear, or desire has good consequences does not mean they are rational.
Example: Regretting a mistake might be rational, but not regretting it (to avoid depression) is also a practical choice.
What is the conclusion of the paper?
- Practical benefits do not make a belief rational.
- Epistemic justification is the only standard for belief rationality.
What is the central claim of Rinard’s paper?
- The Equal Treatment principle: the rationality of belief should be determined in the same way as the rationality of any other state (e.g., wearing a raincoat or listening to music).
- This contrasts with Evidentialism, which holds that belief rationality is determined by evidence.
What is the traditional view Rinard argues against?
Exceptionalism: The idea that beliefs should be evaluated differently from other states, using epistemic justification rather than expected value or practical outcomes.
The most common form of Exceptionalism is Evidentialism: a belief is rational only if it is supported by evidence.
What thought experiment does Rinard introduce to challenge Exceptionalism?
A person receives a machine with three buttons:
1. One transports them to Costa Rica (linked to happiness).
2. One plays music (linked to happiness).
3. One instantly creates a belief in an afterlife, even if the evidence is against it.
The question: If pressing the first two buttons is rational, why is pressing the third irrational?
What are the main advantages of Equal Treatment?
- Theoretical simplicity: It avoids creating a special rule for belief.
- Flexibility: It allows non-evidential factors (like expected value) to influence rationality.
- Explains counterexamples: Some beliefs (e.g., believing in recovery from illness) seem rational even if not fully supported by evidence.
How does Equal Treatment respond to skepticism?
- It accepts that skeptical arguments may show our evidence is insufficient for many beliefs
- However, beliefs in an external world, other minds, etc., can still be rational based on their practical benefits (e.g., guiding actions, reducing anxiety).
What is Rinard’s critique of Evidentialism?
Evidentialism struggles to explain cases where beliefs seem rational despite weak evidence:
- A sick person believing they will recover.
- An athlete believing they will win.
- Martin Luther King Jr. having faith in humanity.
Equal Treatment can justify these beliefs pragmatically, but Evidentialism cannot.
What is the “Consequentialist Mistake” in belief evaluation?
- Evidentialists assume beliefs are only rational if truth-conducive.
- Rinard argues that beliefs can be rational based on their consequences, just like other states (e.g., wearing a raincoat to stay dry).
What objections does Rinard address?
“Beliefs are involuntary, so they can’t be rationally evaluated like actions.”
- Rinard responds: Many states (e.g., emotions, habits) are also involuntary but are still evaluated for rationality.
“Equal Treatment endorses wishful thinking.”
- Response: It does not endorse wishful thinking, but recognizes that some beliefs (e.g., self-confidence) can be rational due to their benefits.
What is the main conclusion of Rinard’s argument?
- There is no fundamental reason to treat belief differently from other rational states.
- Pragmatic factors (expected benefits) can make beliefs rational, just as they make actions rational.
- Evidentialism is too restrictive and cannot account for many intuitive cases of rational belief.
