Epistemic norms, closure, and No-Belief hinge epistemology

Recent views in hinge epistemology rely on doxastic normativism to argue that our attitudes towards hinge propositions are not beliefs. This paper has two aims; the first is positive: it discusses the general normative credentials of this move. The second is negative: it delivers two negative results for No-Belief hinge epistemology such construed. The first concerns the motivation for the view: if we’re right, doxastic normativism offers little in the way of theoretical support for the claim that our attitudes towards hinge propositions are anything but garden-variety beliefs. The second concerns theoretical fruitfulness: we show that embracing a No-Belief view will either get us in serious theoretical trouble, or loose all anti-sceptical appeal

Epistemic norms, closure, and no-Belief hinge epistemology

Recent views in hinge epistemology rely on doxastic normativism to argue that our attitudes towards hinge propositions are not beliefs. This paper has two aims; the first is positive: it discusses the general normative credentials of this move. The second is negative: it delivers two negative results for No-Belief hinge epistemology such construed. The first concerns the motivation for the view: if we’re right, doxastic normativism offers little in the way of theoretical support for the claim that our attitudes towards hinge propositions are anything but garden-variety beliefs. The second concerns theoretical fruitfulness: we show that embracing a No-Belief view will either get us in serious theoretical trouble, or loose all anti-sceptical appeal

The unruly mind

This thesis is an evaluation of doxastic normativism. Doxastic normativism is the theory that belief is essentially normative, and that the norm of belief is a constitutive norm. After introducing the taxonomy of normativist views I use throughout the thesis, I discuss four versions of doxastic normativism: state normativism, conceptual normativism, intentional teleologism, and teleo-functionalism. The first two are those traditionally referred to as “doxastic normativism”, and they are the main targets of the thesis. Discussion of the second two is less extensive, and serves to show that the central problem for normativism lies not in the kind of normativity that it claims is essential to belief, but in the attempt to make any normative property whatsoever a necessary condition for belief. I develop undercutting objections to two arguments for state normativism and to one argument for conceptual normativism. My objections draw on i.a. the semantics of correctness ascriptions, the norms of other intentional states, the nature of rationality, and the evidential sensitivity of belief. Then there are several rebutting objections, drawing on non-agential mental states, the normative classification of epistemically deviant mental states, and difficulties for state-differentiation through norms. The discussions of teleologism and teleo-functionalism demonstrate that these views, although making much weaker claims about belief, fall prey as well to the main problems identified for the core normativist views. The thesis closes on a chapter offering reflections about the reasons behind the failures of normativism, as well as a descriptive theory of belief that I argue can fulfil the explanatory desiderata of doxastic normativism

The unruly mind

This thesis is an evaluation of doxastic normativism. Doxastic normativism is the theory that belief is essentially normative, and that the norm of belief is a constitutive norm. After introducing the taxonomy of normativist views I use throughout the thesis, I discuss four versions of doxastic normativism: state normativism, conceptual normativism, intentional teleologism, and teleo-functionalism. The first two are those traditionally referred to as âdoxastic normativismâ, and they are the main targets of the thesis. Discussion of the second two is less extensive, and serves to show that the central problem for normativism lies not in the kind of normativity that it claims is essential to belief, but in the attempt to make any normative property whatsoever a necessary condition for belief. I develop undercutting objections to two arguments for state normativism and to one argument for conceptual normativism. My objections draw on i.a. the semantics of correctness ascriptions, the norms of other intentional states, the nature of rationality, and the evidential sensitivity of belief. Then there are several rebutting objections, drawing on non-agential mental states, the normative classification of epistemically deviant mental states, and difficulties for state-differentiation through norms. The discussions of teleologism and teleo-functionalism demonstrate that these views, although making much weaker claims about belief, fall prey as well to the main problems identified for the core normativist views. The thesis closes on a chapter offering reflections about the reasons behind the failures of normativism, as well as a descriptive theory of belief that I argue can fulfil the explanatory desiderata of doxastic normativism

SEKT: Semantically Enabled Knowledge Technologies

Deliverable D7.1.1.a (WP7.1) This informal deliverable aims to provide use cases for SEKT. The use cases are described in natural language and serve as a first input for detailed discussion with other partners. In particular, we want to clarify the interactions of technical work packages and to understand better the synergies to be expected from combining the three core technologies of SEKT. Our focus is not on the end-user perspective, but rather on the modelling expert perspective. In future refinements it is foreseen that the most relevant use cases will be refined and serve as a basis for joint system implementations of SEKT partners