实用的理由使信念无利害关系☆

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Analytic Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-08-07 DOI:10.1111/phib.12244
Shawn Hernandez, N. G. Laskowski
{"title":"实用的理由使信念无利害关系☆","authors":"Shawn Hernandez,&nbsp;N. G. Laskowski","doi":"10.1111/phib.12244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pragmatic encroachment can be thought of as the idea that knowledge is in some way sensitive to practical considerations, including practical considerations involving what is at stake in getting things right. Recently, Mark Schroeder defends pragmatic encroachment by showing how it could be true. This paper argues that the view proposed by Schroeder is vulnerable to a simple but important objection. It also argues that the objection can be avoided by claiming that there are even more kinds of practical considerations that can be epistemic reasons than those kinds involving stakes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"63 1","pages":"16-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/phib.12244","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practical reasons for belief without stakes☆\",\"authors\":\"Shawn Hernandez,&nbsp;N. G. Laskowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Pragmatic encroachment can be thought of as the idea that knowledge is in some way sensitive to practical considerations, including practical considerations involving what is at stake in getting things right. Recently, Mark Schroeder defends pragmatic encroachment by showing how it could be true. This paper argues that the view proposed by Schroeder is vulnerable to a simple but important objection. It also argues that the objection can be avoided by claiming that there are even more kinds of practical considerations that can be epistemic reasons than those kinds involving stakes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"16-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/phib.12244\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12244\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12244","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实用主义侵占可以被认为是知识在某种程度上对实际考虑很敏感,包括实际考虑,包括把事情做好的利害关系。最近,马克•施罗德(Mark Schroeder)为务实主义侵犯辩护,他展示了这种侵犯为何可能是真的。本文认为,施罗德提出的观点容易受到一个简单但重要的反对意见的影响。它还认为,可以通过声称有更多的实际考虑可以成为认知原因,而不是那些涉及利害关系的考虑,来避免反对意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Practical reasons for belief without stakes☆

Pragmatic encroachment can be thought of as the idea that knowledge is in some way sensitive to practical considerations, including practical considerations involving what is at stake in getting things right. Recently, Mark Schroeder defends pragmatic encroachment by showing how it could be true. This paper argues that the view proposed by Schroeder is vulnerable to a simple but important objection. It also argues that the objection can be avoided by claiming that there are even more kinds of practical considerations that can be epistemic reasons than those kinds involving stakes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Categorial versus naturalized epistemology Naked statistical evidence and verdictive justice Issue Information Bringing the deep self back to the racecourse: Rethinking accountability and the deep self
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1