lecture_11_2x2

lecture_11_2x2 - Announcements and Such One Song Yes...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
One Song — Yes, Classic Yes I’ve Seen All Good People: Your Move/All Good People No office hours for Branden on Thursday. Schedule Change: Only 1 lecture on Testimony. We may/may not add another lecture (stay tuned). So, we’re one-day ahead on the schedule (for now). Some beliefs arise from a process of inference. This is a psychological claim about how beliefs arise , not an epistemic claim — it’s not normative . Not every inferential process will be a good one — in the sense of leading from truths to truths. Often (as in math/logic, explicit philosophy) we consciously infer a conclusion from premises. But, inference — as a mental process need not be conscious . What’s important is that one belief is caused to arise by other beliefs (in a particular way). This is psychological/causal dependence of beliefs. Inferential formation is to be contrasted with other ( direct ) non - inferential formations of belief — e.g. , perceptual, memorial, testimonial, introspective… Inference: Psychology vs Epistemology I Beliefs and inferences are mental states and processes. These are psychological entities. But, the contents or objects of beliefs are not psychological (but, logical ) — these are bearers of truth and falsity (we’ve been calling these propositions ). Example: when I infer a proposition p from a set of propositions Q , I start out believing each member of Q , and I end-up believing p (in addition to Q ). The inferring , and believing are psychological , but what I believe and infer ( p and Q ) are not. It’s crucial to stay clear on the psychological vs epistemic aspects of inference. We’ll mainly be interested in the epistemic, of course. But, it’s important to think about both. Inference: Psychology vs Epistemology II Psychological sense: inferential process . Logical/Epistemic sense: inferential content . Example: I believe (at t0 ) that ( p ) Alberto has Lyme disease, and ( q ) Lyme disease is caused by ticks. I infer from p, q (at t1 ) that ( r ) Alberto was bitten by a tick. In this case, the inferential process is how my mental state evolves from t0 to t1 . But, the inferential content is an argument that has p and q as its premises , and r as its conclusion . Inferential content can mirror (the structure of) inferential process, but they are distinct. This need not involve “saying” (even subconsciously) “therefore”. What matters is how my belief that r is based on/depends on my beliefs that p and that q .
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 4

lecture_11_2x2 - Announcements and Such One Song Yes...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online