Technology and Architecture

The rationality of a belief often depends on whether it is rightly connected to other beliefs, or more generally to other mental states -the states capable of providing a reason to holding the belief in question. For instance, some rational beliefs are connected to other beliefs by being inferred from them. It is often accepted that the connection implies that the subject in some sense 'takes the mental states in question to be reason-providing'. But views on how exactly this is to be understood differ widely. They range from interpretations according to which 'taking a mental state to be reason-providing' imposes a mere causal sustaining relation between belief and reason-providing state to interpretations according to which one 'takes a mental state to be reason-providing' only if one believes that the state is reason-providing. The most common worry about the latter view is that it faces a vicious regress. In this paper a different but in some respects similar interpretation of 'taking something as reason-providing' is given. It is argued to consist of a disposition to react in certain ways to information that challenges the reason-providing capacity of the allegedly reason-providing state. For instance, that one has inferred A from B partly consists in being disposed to suspend judgment about A if one obtains a reason to believe that B does not render A probable. The account is defended against regress-objections and the suspicion of explanatory circularity.

Some of the few who endorse some such requirement are Fumerton [1995], Bonjour [1998], Wright [2004a]-but not without qualification. 2 For instance Van Cleve [1984], Greco [1999]. 1 This proposition is, at least at the face of it, not equivalent to the proposition (1) and (2) epistemically support (3). The latter proposition is about an epistemic supportrelation, not about a logical relation. But I think that some of the things said in this chapter about L apply to the latter proposition too. But there are very important differences between the two [cf. Cohen, 1998], so that they must be properly treated separately. I discuss similar issues with respect to the proposition about epistemic support in chapter 4. 2 "equivocation" may be understood as designating the fact that the same linguistic expression in two different premises stands for two different concepts. In this sense the mental process of inferring cannot show "equivocation". But whenever we fall prey to an "equivocation", it is also true that our reasoning is defective. It is this defect in reasoning that I call equivocation. 3 I discuss the relation between evidence and attitudes in section 2.2. 4 I sometimes express this fact by saying that the subject "has justification for (3)" or that for the subject "(3) has positive epistemic status". 5 I express the fact that the subject believes (3) for her good epistemic reason sometimes by saying that she "justifiably believes (3)" or that she "is justified in believing (3)". Furthermore, the subject's believing (3) for her good epistemic reason in N , involves the fact that I express by saying that the subject "bases her belief in (3) on her beliefs in (1) and (2)". See below in the text. 12 Furthermore Fumerton does not distinguish between E makes probable P and E supports/justifies P. In his commentary to Fumerton [1995], Stewart Cohen [1998] objects to taking the latter two propositions to be equivalent.

The rationality of a belief often depends on whether it is rightly connected to other beliefs, or more generally to other mental states —the states capable of providing a reason to holding the belief in question. For instance, some rational beliefs are connected to other beliefs by being inferred from them. It is often accepted that the connection implies that the subject in some sense ‘takes the mental states in question to be reason-providing’. But views on how exactly this is to be understood differ widely. They range from interpretations according to which ‘taking a mental state to be reason-providing’ imposes a mere causal sustaining relation between belief and reason-providing state to interpretations according to which one ‘takes a mental state to be reason-providing’ only if one believes that the state is reason-providing. The most common worry about the latter view is that it faces a vicious regress. In this paper a dierent but in some respects similar interpretation of ‘ta...

The rationality of a belief often depends on whether it is rightly connected to other beliefs, or more generally to other mental states-the states capable of providing a reason to holding the belief in question. For instance, some rational beliefs are connected to other beliefs by being inferred from them. It is often accepted that the connection implies that the subject in some sense 'takes the mental states in question to be reason-providing'. But views on how exactly this is to be understood differ widely. They range from interpretations according to which 'taking a mental state to be reason-providing' imposes a mere causal sustaining relation between belief and reason-providing state to interpretations according to which one 'takes a mental state to be reason-providing' only if one believes that the state is reason-providing. The most common worry about the latter view is that it faces a vicious regress. In this paper a different but in some respects similar interpretation of 'taking something as reason-providing' is given. It is argued to consist of a disposition to react in certain ways to information that challenges the reason-providing capacity of the allegedly reason-providing state. For instance, that one has inferred A from B partly consists in being disposed to suspend judgment about A if one obtains a reason to believe that B does not render A probable. The account is defended against regress-objections and the suspicion of explanatory circularity.

Some of the few who endorse some such requirement are Fumerton [1995], Bonjour [1998], Wright [2004a]-but not without qualification. 2 For instance Van Cleve [1984], Greco [1999]. 1 This proposition is, at least at the face of it, not equivalent to the proposition (1) and (2) epistemically support (3). The latter proposition is about an epistemic supportrelation, not about a logical relation. But I think that some of the things said in this chapter about L apply to the latter proposition too. But there are very important differences between the two [cf. Cohen, 1998], so that they must be properly treated separately. I discuss similar issues with respect to the proposition about epistemic support in chapter 4. 2 "equivocation" may be understood as designating the fact that the same linguistic expression in two different premises stands for two different concepts. In this sense the mental process of inferring cannot show "equivocation". But whenever we fall prey to an "equivocation", it is also true that our reasoning is defective. It is this defect in reasoning that I call equivocation. 3 I discuss the relation between evidence and attitudes in section 2.2. 4 I sometimes express this fact by saying that the subject "has justification for (3)" or that for the subject "(3) has positive epistemic status". 5 I express the fact that the subject believes (3) for her good epistemic reason sometimes by saying that she "justifiably believes (3)" or that she "is justified in believing (3)". Furthermore, the subject's believing (3) for her good epistemic reason in N , involves the fact that I express by saying that the subject "bases her belief in (3) on her beliefs in (1) and (2)". See below in the text. 12 Furthermore Fumerton does not distinguish between E makes probable P and E supports/justifies P. In his commentary to Fumerton [1995], Stewart Cohen [1998] objects to taking the latter two propositions to be equivalent.

The rationality of a belief often depends on whether it is rightly connected to other beliefs, or more generally to other mental states-the states capable of providing a reason to holding the belief in question. For instance, some rational beliefs are connected to other beliefs by being inferred from them. It is often accepted that the connection implies that the subject in some sense 'takes the mental states in question to be reason-providing'. But views on how exactly this is to be understood differ widely. They range from interpretations according to which 'taking a mental state to be reason-providing' imposes a mere causal sustaining relation between belief and reason-providing state to interpretations according to which one 'takes a mental state to be reason-providing' only if one believes that the state is reason-providing. The most common worry about the latter view is that it faces a vicious regress. In this paper a different but in some respects similar interpretation of 'taking something as reason-providing' is given. It is argued to consist of a disposition to react in certain ways to information that challenges the reason-providing capacity of the allegedly reason-providing state. For instance, that one has inferred A from B partly consists in being disposed to suspend judgment about A if one obtains a reason to believe that B does not render A probable. The account is defended against regress-objections and the suspicion of explanatory circularity.