Nothing but the Evidential Considerations?

@article{Sharadin2016NothingBT,
  title={Nothing but the Evidential Considerations?},
  author={Nathaniel Sharadin},
  journal={Australasian Journal of Philosophy},
  year={2016},
  volume={94},
  pages={343 - 361}
}
A number of philosophers have claimed that non-evidential considerations cannot play a role in doxastic deliberation as motivating reasons to believe a proposition. This claim, interesting in its own right, naturally lends itself to use in a range of arguments for a wide array of substantive philosophical theses. I argue, by way of a counterexample, that the claim to which all these arguments appeal is false. I then consider, and reply to, seven objections to my counterexample. Finally, as a… Expand
12 Citations
Two Arguments for Evidentialism
  • 17
  • PDF
Doxastic permissiveness and the promise of truth
  • J. Drake
  • Mathematics, Computer Science
  • Synthese
  • 2016
  • 8
Justifying the principle of indifference
  • Jon Williamson
  • Economics, Medicine
  • European journal for philosophy of science
  • 2018
  • 2
  • PDF
Knowledge-First Evidentialism and the Dilemmas of Self-Impact
Consequentialism and Moral Worth
  • 1
The value of truth and the normativity of evidence
  • PDF
The epistemic norm of inference and non-epistemic reasons for belief
  • 3
Reasons and Normativity
  • PDF
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 42 REFERENCES
A New Argument for Evidentialism
  • 143
  • PDF
No Norm Needed: on the Aim of Belief
  • 91
The Illusion of Exclusivity
  • 26
  • PDF
The Rationality of Belief and Some Other Propositional Attitudes
  • 98
  • PDF
Voluntarism and Transparent Deliberation
  • 9
How Truth Governs Belief
  • 286
  • PDF
Foley's evidence and his epistemic reasons
  • 2
Problems of the Self: Deciding to believe
  • 326
Responsibility for believing
  • 147
  • PDF
The Ubiquity of State-Given Reasons*
  • 69
...
1
2
3
4
5
...