The question of whether it is ever permissible to believe on insufficient evidence has once
again become a live question. Greater attention is now being paid to practical dimensions of …

We call beliefs reasonable or unreasonable, justified or unjustified. What does this imply
about belief? Does this imply that we are responsible for our beliefs and that we should be …

The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our
habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always …

The normative force of evidence can seem puzzling. It seems that having conclusive
evidence for a proposition does not, by itself, make it true that one ought to believe the …

Abstract 'Evidentialism'is the conventional name (given mainly by its opponents) for the view
that there is a moral duty to proportion one's beliefs to evidence, proof or other epistemic …

What we believe and what we do not believe has a great impact on what we do and fail to
do. Hence, if we want to act responsibly, we should believe responsibly. However, do we …

The fundamental question of the ethics of belief is" What ought one to believe?" According to
the traditional view of evidentialism, the strength of one's beliefs should be proportionate to …

The concepts of justified, warranted, and epistemically rational belief, along with the notion
of knowledge, form the core subject matter of epistemology. Despite their centrality, these …

In some circumstances, a wedge may be driven between what is advantageous or beneficial
to believe and what is true. Cases range from the exotic—with diabolical forces conspiring to …

The deontological conception of epistemic justification is “viable” only if deontological
judgments about beliefs are sometimes true. This chapter is primarily with the inference, the …