Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?

Much of the force behind doxastic involuntarism comes from our pre-theoretical judgement that any effort to form a belief simply by intending to form it must remain unsuccessful. However, despite this, ordinary language use of locutions like “chose to believe” are common. In this article, we present...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Review of philosophy and psychology 2023-09, Vol.14 (3), p.1077-1098
Hauptverfasser: Nottelmann, Nikolaj, Booth, Anthony, Lomholt, Rune
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1098
container_issue 3
container_start_page 1077
container_title Review of philosophy and psychology
container_volume 14
creator Nottelmann, Nikolaj
Booth, Anthony
Lomholt, Rune
description Much of the force behind doxastic involuntarism comes from our pre-theoretical judgement that any effort to form a belief simply by intending to form it must remain unsuccessful. However, despite this, ordinary language use of locutions like “chose to believe” are common. In this article, we present new experimental data that shows that the prevalence of ordinary language talk of “chosen beliefs” is no obstacle to doxastic involuntarism in a standard sense (pace Turri et al. 2018 ). While we employ the methods of experimental philosophy, our argument also concerns the fundamental question as to what those methods can achieve: as is typical of philosophical debates, the debate over doxastic voluntarism involves a refined theoretical concept, specifically a refined concept of voluntary belief. In such debates, we cannot determine our pre-theoretical position by conducting surveys on those who may not yet own the requisite theoretical concepts.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2876497955</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2876497955</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-8d7f1fecbf8b94d0e8c767de75a9c5bc0673b3ce3ae6040c50c4bac30070f793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKcFz9Fks_nCg5T6CQU9FD2GbHZWt-w2NUnB_nujK3pzLjMw7_sO8yB0Ssk5JUReRMqoqDApS0yIoByzAzShSirMqRCHvzNXx2gW45rkYppRrSfoch6geIHiKQBevYEPkDpn-35fLPwwdClBUyRfXPsPG_OmePb9bpNs6OJwdYKOWttHmP30KVrd3qwW93j5ePewmC-xY7RKWDWypS24ulW1rhoCykkhG5DcasdrR4RkNXPALAhSEceJq2rrWH6NtFKzKTobY7fBv-8gJrP2u7DJF02ppKi01JxnVTmqXPAxBmjNNnSDDXtDifnCZEZMJmMy35gMyyY2mmIWb14h_EX_4_oEF8Zp9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2876497955</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Nottelmann, Nikolaj ; Booth, Anthony ; Lomholt, Rune</creator><creatorcontrib>Nottelmann, Nikolaj ; Booth, Anthony ; Lomholt, Rune</creatorcontrib><description>Much of the force behind doxastic involuntarism comes from our pre-theoretical judgement that any effort to form a belief simply by intending to form it must remain unsuccessful. However, despite this, ordinary language use of locutions like “chose to believe” are common. In this article, we present new experimental data that shows that the prevalence of ordinary language talk of “chosen beliefs” is no obstacle to doxastic involuntarism in a standard sense (pace Turri et al. 2018 ). While we employ the methods of experimental philosophy, our argument also concerns the fundamental question as to what those methods can achieve: as is typical of philosophical debates, the debate over doxastic voluntarism involves a refined theoretical concept, specifically a refined concept of voluntary belief. In such debates, we cannot determine our pre-theoretical position by conducting surveys on those who may not yet own the requisite theoretical concepts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1878-5158</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5166</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Cognitive Psychology ; Developmental Psychology ; Education ; Epistemology ; Neurosciences ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Mind ; Philosophy of Science</subject><ispartof>Review of philosophy and psychology, 2023-09, Vol.14 (3), p.1077-1098</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-8d7f1fecbf8b94d0e8c767de75a9c5bc0673b3ce3ae6040c50c4bac30070f793</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8621-6640</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nottelmann, Nikolaj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booth, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomholt, Rune</creatorcontrib><title>Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?</title><title>Review of philosophy and psychology</title><addtitle>Rev.Phil.Psych</addtitle><description>Much of the force behind doxastic involuntarism comes from our pre-theoretical judgement that any effort to form a belief simply by intending to form it must remain unsuccessful. However, despite this, ordinary language use of locutions like “chose to believe” are common. In this article, we present new experimental data that shows that the prevalence of ordinary language talk of “chosen beliefs” is no obstacle to doxastic involuntarism in a standard sense (pace Turri et al. 2018 ). While we employ the methods of experimental philosophy, our argument also concerns the fundamental question as to what those methods can achieve: as is typical of philosophical debates, the debate over doxastic voluntarism involves a refined theoretical concept, specifically a refined concept of voluntary belief. In such debates, we cannot determine our pre-theoretical position by conducting surveys on those who may not yet own the requisite theoretical concepts.</description><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Developmental Psychology</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Mind</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><issn>1878-5158</issn><issn>1878-5166</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWGr_gKcFz9Fks_nCg5T6CQU9FD2GbHZWt-w2NUnB_nujK3pzLjMw7_sO8yB0Ssk5JUReRMqoqDApS0yIoByzAzShSirMqRCHvzNXx2gW45rkYppRrSfoch6geIHiKQBevYEPkDpn-35fLPwwdClBUyRfXPsPG_OmePb9bpNs6OJwdYKOWttHmP30KVrd3qwW93j5ePewmC-xY7RKWDWypS24ulW1rhoCykkhG5DcasdrR4RkNXPALAhSEceJq2rrWH6NtFKzKTobY7fBv-8gJrP2u7DJF02ppKi01JxnVTmqXPAxBmjNNnSDDXtDifnCZEZMJmMy35gMyyY2mmIWb14h_EX_4_oEF8Zp9g</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Nottelmann, Nikolaj</creator><creator>Booth, Anthony</creator><creator>Lomholt, Rune</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8621-6640</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?</title><author>Nottelmann, Nikolaj ; Booth, Anthony ; Lomholt, Rune</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-8d7f1fecbf8b94d0e8c767de75a9c5bc0673b3ce3ae6040c50c4bac30070f793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Developmental Psychology</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Mind</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nottelmann, Nikolaj</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booth, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lomholt, Rune</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Review of philosophy and psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nottelmann, Nikolaj</au><au>Booth, Anthony</au><au>Lomholt, Rune</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?</atitle><jtitle>Review of philosophy and psychology</jtitle><stitle>Rev.Phil.Psych</stitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1077</spage><epage>1098</epage><pages>1077-1098</pages><issn>1878-5158</issn><eissn>1878-5166</eissn><abstract>Much of the force behind doxastic involuntarism comes from our pre-theoretical judgement that any effort to form a belief simply by intending to form it must remain unsuccessful. However, despite this, ordinary language use of locutions like “chose to believe” are common. In this article, we present new experimental data that shows that the prevalence of ordinary language talk of “chosen beliefs” is no obstacle to doxastic involuntarism in a standard sense (pace Turri et al. 2018 ). While we employ the methods of experimental philosophy, our argument also concerns the fundamental question as to what those methods can achieve: as is typical of philosophical debates, the debate over doxastic voluntarism involves a refined theoretical concept, specifically a refined concept of voluntary belief. In such debates, we cannot determine our pre-theoretical position by conducting surveys on those who may not yet own the requisite theoretical concepts.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3</doi><tpages>22</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8621-6640</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1878-5158
ispartof Review of philosophy and psychology, 2023-09, Vol.14 (3), p.1077-1098
issn 1878-5158
1878-5166
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2876497955
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Cognitive Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Education
Epistemology
Neurosciences
Philosophy
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
title Are We Pre-Theoretically Committed to Doxastic Voluntarism?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T05%3A03%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20We%20Pre-Theoretically%20Committed%20to%20Doxastic%20Voluntarism?&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20philosophy%20and%20psychology&rft.au=Nottelmann,%20Nikolaj&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1077&rft.epage=1098&rft.pages=1077-1098&rft.issn=1878-5158&rft.eissn=1878-5166&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13164-022-00615-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2876497955%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2876497955&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true