A defence of the truth norm of belief
MetadataShow full item record
For belief, the standard of correctness is truth. Truth is said to be the norm of belief. This thesis aims to address some recent challenges relating to various aspects of the truth norm of belief on a reason-based normative framework. On a reason-based normative framework, normativity is a matter of (normative) reasons. Reasons are facts that count in favour of a response, grounded in value-based, desire-based, constitutive, or practice-based facts. Reasons are the sort of things that we can respond to and they have weights in making a claim on us when we stand in a relation to them. Three anti-normativist challenges arise in recent discussion. First, the grounding challenge concerns whether the reason to believe truly (correctly) and to refrain from believing falsely (incorrectly) can be properly grounded. Second, the guidance challenge concerns whether the reason to believe truly and to refrain from believing falsely is something we can respond to in our belief-formation. Third, the weighting challenge concerns whether the reason to believe truly and to refrain from believing falsely has any weight in making a claim on us regarding what we ought to/may believe. In this thesis, I offer novel responses to all three challenges. I develop and defend a practice-based, variantist account of the truth norm, according to which, the truth norm of belief is grounded in a justified social practice, guides our belief-formation on a reason- responsive model of epistemic guidance, and makes varying claims on us regarding what we ought to/may believe depending on the circumstances.
Thesis, PhD Doctor of Philosophy
Description of related resourcesWei, X. (2019). The Permissible Norm of Truth and “Ought Implies Can”. Logos & Episteme, 10(4), 433-440. https://doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme201910438
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.