Abstract

Stance voluntarism highlights the role of the will in epistemic agency, claiming that agents can control the epistemic stances they assume in forming beliefs. It claims that radical belief changes are not compelled by the evidence; they are rationally permitted choices about which epistemic stances to adopt. However, terms like “will”, “choice”, and “stance” play a crucial role while being left as vague notions. This paper investigates what kind of control rational agents can have over epistemic stances. I argue that whether epistemic stances are voluntary depends on what kind of stance is being assessed. Sometimes epistemic stances are taken to be evaluative attitudes about how to produce knowledge. This kind of stance is not directly controllable, since it is essentially connected to beliefs, and believing is not voluntary. But sometimes epistemic stances are taken to be styles of reasoning and modes of engagement, expressing ways of approaching the world in order to produce knowledge, which can be voluntary. Overall, this supports a formulation of stance voluntarism as a dual-systems theory of epistemic agency, where epistemic rationality is compounded by a dynamic interplay between involuntary processes of belief formation and voluntary processes of cognitive guidance.

Highlights

  • There is a feeling that all the main arguments in the scientific realism debate are somehow question-begging

  • Stance voluntarism highlights the role of the will in epistemic agency, claiming that agents can control the epistemic stances they assume in forming beliefs

  • This paper investigates what kind of control rational agents can have over epistemic stances

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is a feeling that all the main arguments in the scientific realism debate are somehow question-begging. Persistent stale-mate and methodological incommensurability is not unique to the scientific realism debate, but can be found in the clash of many philosophical traditions as well as on typical scientific revolutions (Feyerabend 1993; Kuhn 1962) The existence of this kind of deep disagreement in rational inquiries, such as science and philosophical debates, motivates the claim that rational agents do not determine their views solely on the basis of arguments, and on some sort of primitive judgment about what fundamental beliefs and methods are epistemically preferable. Van Fraassen (2002) defended a voluntarist epistemology in order to legitimize the role of the will in scientific revolutions and other radical belief changes He appeals to the notion of an epistemic stance in order to express the soul of a philosophical position, which can be used to clarify how philosophical traditions are fundamentally opposed, and maybe help us deal with this kind of disagreement.

What is an Epistemic Stance?
Direct Doxastic Involuntarism
Direct Stance Involuntarism
Indirect Stance Voluntarism
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call