Doxastic Revision in Non-Human Animals: The First-Order Model

Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-22 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

If we focus on current debates on how creatures revise or correct their beliefs, we can identify two opposing approaches that we propose to call “intellectualism” and “minimalism.” In this paper, we outline a new account of doxastic revision — “the first-order model”— that is neither as cognitively demanding as intellectualism nor as deflationary as minimalism. First-order doxastic revision, we argue, is a personal-level process in which a creature rejects some beliefs and accepts others based on reasons. However, it does not involve second-order thinking or sophisticated semantic and epistemic concepts. Besides defending that there is conceptual space for this alternative, we explore the possibility of extending it to some non-human animals. Based on our interpretation of some empirical evidence, we conclude that there are initial reasons to think that some animals — i.e., great apes— might be able to correct their beliefs in the way that our first-order model suggests.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,038

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Compositionality Meets Belief Revision: a Bayesian Model of Modification.Corina Strößner - 2020 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11 (4):859-880.
Editorial: Cultural Variation and Cognition.Edouard Machery, Joshua Knobe & Stephen P. Stich - 2023 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 14 (2):339-347.
Editorial: Predictive Processing and Consciousness.Mark Miller, Andy Clark & Tobias Schlicht - 2022 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 13 (4):797-808.
Explaining Human Diversity: the Need to Balance Fit and Complexity.Armin W. Schulz - 2021 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 14 (2):1-19.
Explaining Human Diversity: the Need to Balance Fit and Complexity.Armin W. Schulz - 2021 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 14 (2):457-475.
Perception of Absence and Penetration from Expectation.Anna Farennikova - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (4):621-640.
Folk psychology, consciousness, and context effects.Adam Arico - 2010 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):371-393.
A New Role for Experimental Work in Metaphysics.L. A. Paul - 2010 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):461-476.
The Guru Effect.Dan Sperber - 2010 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (4):583-592.
Self-ascriptions of Belief and Transparency.Pascal Engel - 2010 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (4):593-610.
Similarity After Goodman.Lieven Decock & Igor Douven - 2011 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (1):61-75.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-08-03

Downloads
16 (#907,699)

6 months
11 (#238,333)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Daniel Kalpokas
National University of Córdoba
Laura Danón
National University of Córdoba

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
Mind and World.John Mcdowell - 1996 - Philosophical Quarterly 46 (182):99-109.
Practical Reality.Jonathan Dancy - 2000 - Philosophy 78 (305):414-425.

View all 42 references / Add more references