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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Review of philosophy and psychology 2023-09, Vol.14 (3), p.1077-1098 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |