Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T20:02:52.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2024

Avery Archer
Avery Archer
Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Attitude of Agnosticism , pp. 209 - 213
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anscombe, G. E. M. (1963). Intention, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Archer, A. (2016). Reconceiving Direction of Fit. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 4 (2): 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. (2018). Wondering about What You Know. Analysis, 78 (4): 596–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. (2019). Agnosticism, Inquiry, and Unanswerable Questions. Disputatio, 11 (53): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. (2021). The Aim of Inquiry. Disputatio, 13 (61): 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. (2022). The Questioning-Attitude Account of Agnosticism. Synthese, 200 (6): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, A. (2023). Agnosticism-Involving Doxastic Inconsistency. Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-023-00745-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, P. (2017). A Russellian Account of Suspended Judgment. Synthese, 194: 3021–3046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendaña, J. and Mandelbaum, E. (2021). The Fragmentation of Belief. In Borgoni, C., Kindermann, D., and Onofri, A. (eds.), The Fragmented Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 419–436.Google Scholar
Bergmann, M. (2005). Defeaters and Higher-Level Requirements. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A. R. (2007). The Two Faces of Evidentialism. Erkenntnis, 67 (3):401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. (1992). Practical Reasoning and Acceptance in a Context. Mind, 101 (401): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (1999). Normative Requirements. Ratio, 12: 389–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (2009). The Unity of Reasoning? In Robertson, S. (ed.), Spheres of Reason: New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 62–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (2013). Rationality through Reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (2016). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 21st Century: A Living Document in a Changing World. vol. 2. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. (2008). Subject-Sensitive Invariantism and the Knowledge Norm for Practical Reasoning. Noûs, 42: 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunero, J. (2014). Cognitivism about Practical Rationality. In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 18–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunero, J. and Kolodny, N. (2013). Instrumental Rationality. In Zalta, E. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/rationality-instrumental/>..>Google Scholar
Cassam, Q. (2010). Judging, Believing and Thinking. Philosophical Issues, 20: 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1976). Person and Object. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. (1989). Theory of Knowledge. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4: 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review, 116 (2):187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., and Roelofsen, F. (2018). Inquisitive Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. (1999). Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons. Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (2016). Theorizing about the Epistemic. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 59 (7–8):839–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. and Feldman, R. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48 (1): 15–34.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. (2004). A Solution for Russellians to a Puzzle about Belief. Analysis, 64 (3): 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. and Rayo, A. (2021). Fragmentation and Information Access. In Borgoni, C., Kindermann, D., and Onofri, A. (eds.), The Fragmented Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. and Rayo, A. (2022). Fragmentation and Logical Omniscience. Noûs, 56 (3): 716–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, C. Z. (2010). Persistent Disagreement. In Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 53–68.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2010). Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (But Not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement. Mind, 119 (476): 953–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falbo, A. (2021). Inquiry and Confirmation. Analysis, 81 (4): 622–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, F. and McGrath, M. (2002). Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification. The Philosophical Review, 3 (1): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2002). Epistemological Duties. In Moser, P. K. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 362–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2005). Respecting the Evidence. Philosophical Perspectives, 19: 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement. In Hetherington, Stephen (ed.), Epistemology Futures. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 216–236.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable Religious Disagreements. In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers without Gods. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. (2018). Between Belief and Disbelief. In McCain, K. (ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence. Synthese Library, 398: 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. A. (eds.) (2010). Disagreement. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, F. and Incurvati, L. (2022). The Varieties of Agnosticism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 72 (2): 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2013a). Question-Directed Attitudes. Philosophical Perspectives, 27: 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2013b). Rational Agnosticism and Degrees of Belief. In Gendler, D. and Hawthorne, J.(eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, vol 4, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2013c). Suspended Judgement. Philosophical Studies, 162 (2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2017). Why Suspend Judging? Noûs, 51 (2): 302–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2019a). Checking Again. Philosophical Issues, 29: 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, J. (2019b). Inquiry and Belief. Noûs, 53: 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganson, D. (2008). Evidentialism and Pragmatic Constraints on Outright Belief. Philosophical Studies, 139: 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, D. (2015). Iteration and Fragmentation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91 (3): 656–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1971) Intention and Uncertainty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 57: 263–279.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., and Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10 (1): 41–53.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1976). Practical Reasoning. The Review of Metaphysics, 29 (3): 431–463.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (1998). Agnosticism Meets Bayesianism. Analysis, 58 (3): 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieronymi, P. (2006). Controlling Attitudes. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 87 (1): 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, C. (2016). Transparency and the Ethics of Belief. Philosophical Studies, 173 (5):1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, T. (1889). Agnosticism. The Nineteenth Century 25: 169–194.Google Scholar
Kapitan, T. (1986). Deliberation and the Presumption of Open Alternatives. The Philosophical Quarterly,. 36 (143): 230–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, M. (1981). A Bayesian Theory of Rational Acceptance. The Journal of Philosophy,. 78 (6): 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and Semantics of Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy,. 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, S. and Star, D. (2008). Reasons: Explanations or Evidence. Ethics, 119 (1):31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, S. and Star, D. (2009). Reasons as Evidence. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 4:215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2005). The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2010). Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence. In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 111–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. (2020). Theory of Inquiry. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 103: 359–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelp, C. (2021). Inquiry, Knowledge, and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (2014). Higher-Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88 (2): 314–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, W. (2019). Constitutive Reasons and the Suspension of Judgement. Dialogue, 58 (2): 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, E. (2020). Suspension of Judgment, Rationality’s Competition, and the Reach of the Epistemic. In Schmidt, S. and Ernst, G. (eds.), The Ethics of Belief and Beyond. Understanding Mental Normativity. Routledge: 126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, E., and Sylvan, K. (2021). Suspension, Higher-Order Evidence, and Defeat. In Simion, M. and Brown, J. (eds.), Reasons, Justification, and Defeat. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. and Duke, R. (2016). Brain Briefs: Answers to the Most (and Least) Pressing Questions about Your Mind. New York: Sterling.Google Scholar
Marušić, B. & Schwenkler, J. (2018). Intending is Believing: A Defense of Strong Cognitivism. Analytic Philosophy, 59 (3):309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masny, M. (2020). Friedman on Suspended Judgment. Synthese, 197 (11): 5009–5026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, M. (2020). Being Neutral: Agnosticism, Inquiry and the Suspension of Judgment. Noûs, 55 (2): 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millson, J. (2021). Seeking Confirmation: A Puzzle for Norms of Inquiry. Analysis, 80 (4):683–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, P. J. (2010). Voluntary Belief on a Reasonable Basis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81 (2):312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, E. and Westlund, D. (2006). On the Role of the Research Agenda in Epistemic Change. Erkenntnis, 65(2): 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmira, M. (2013). A Puzzle about the Agnostic Response to Peer Disagreement. Philosophia, 41(4): 1253–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmira, M. (2020). Inquiry and the Doxastic Attitudes. Synthese, 197:4947–4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raleigh, T. (2021). Suspending Is Believing. Synthese, 198: 2449–2474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (1975). Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
Roeber, B. (2016). Reasons to Not Believe (and Reasons to Act). Episteme, 13 (4):439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, L. (2019). Logical Principles of Agnosticism. Erkenntnis, 84: 1263–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkranz, S. (2007). Agnosticism as a Third Stance. Mind, 116: 55–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J., (2009). How to Be a Cognitivist about Practical Reason. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 4: 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B., and Full, B. (1921). The Analysis of Mind. London: G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1997). What Is an Agnostic? In Slater, J. (Ed.), Bertrand Russell: His Works, volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament. London: Routledge: 1943–1968.Google Scholar
Ryan, S. (2010). Doxastic Voluntarism. In Dancy, J., Sosa, E., and Steup, M. (ed.), A Companion to Epistemology, 2nd ed. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwell: 322–324.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2014). Permission to Believe: Why Permissivism Is True and What It Tells Us about Irrelevant Influences on Belief. Noûs, 48: 198–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2012). The Ubiquity of State-Given Reasons. Ethics, 122 (3):457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultheis, G. (2018). Living on the Edge: Against Epistemic Permissivism. Mind, 107 (507): 863–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, K. (2003). Explaining Action. The Philosophical Review, 112: 339–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, K. (2007). Cognitivism about Instrumental Reason. Ethics, 117 (4): 649–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, K. (2008). Practical Knowledge. Ethics, 118: 388–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N. and Velleman, D. (2005). Doxastic Deliberation. The Philosophical Review, 114 (4): 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N. (2006). A New Argument for Evidentialism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56 (225), 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (1991). Knowledge in Perspective: Selected Essays in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, E. (2010). The Epistemology of Disagreement. In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology. Oxford, UK: Oxford Academic: 278–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staffel, J. (2019). Credences and Suspended Judgments as Transitional Attitudes. Philosophical Issues, 29 (1), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steglich-Petersen, A. (2008). Does Doxastic Transparency Support Evidentialism? Dialectica, 62 (4): 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steup, M. (2008). Doxastic Freedom. Synthese, 161 (3): 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steup, M. (1988). The Deontic Conception of Epistemic Justification. Philosophical Studies, 53 (1): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvan, K. (2016). The Illusion of Discretion. Synthese, 193 (6): 1635–1665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turri, J. (2012). A Puzzle about Withholding. Philosophical Quarterly, 62 (247): 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. and Morgenbesser, S.. (1977). Picking and Choosing. Social Research, 44 (4): 757–785.Google Scholar
Velleman, D. (1985). Practical Reflection. The Philosophical Review, 94: 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, D. (1989/2007). Practical Reflection. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wagner, V. (2021). Agnosticism as Settled Indecision. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098–021–01676-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, J. (2017). Reasons as Premises of Good Reasoning. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98 (2): 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2002). The Aim of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 16:267–297.Google Scholar
Weintraub, R. (1990). Decision-Theoretic Epistemology. Synthese, 83 (1): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2005). Epistemic Permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19 (1): 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. G. (1989). Belief, Desire and the Praxis of Reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 90: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, M. (2010). A New Argument for Evidentialism? Philosophia, 38: 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinke, A. (2021). Rational Suspension. Theoria, 87 (5): 1050–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Avery Archer, George Washington University, Washington DC
  • Book: The Attitude of Agnosticism
  • Online publication: 14 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009214759.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Avery Archer, George Washington University, Washington DC
  • Book: The Attitude of Agnosticism
  • Online publication: 14 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009214759.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Avery Archer, George Washington University, Washington DC
  • Book: The Attitude of Agnosticism
  • Online publication: 14 March 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009214759.011
Available formats
×