When is it selectively advantageous to have true beliefs? Sandwiching the better safe than sorry argument

Philosophical Studies 105 (2):161-189 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Several philosophers have argued that natural selection will favor reliable belief formation; others have been more skeptical. These traditional approaches to the evolution of rationality have been either too sketchy or else have assumed that phenotypic plasticity can be equated with having a mind. Here I develop a new model to explore the functional utility of belief and desire formation mechanisms, and defend the claim that natural selection favors reliable inference methods in a broad, but not universal, range of circumstances.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,846

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

What’s wrong with the evolutionary argument against naturalism?Geoff Childers - 2011 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 69 (3):193-204.
How to Be a Reliabilist.Jonathan Kvanvig - 1986 - American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (2):189 - 198.
Trustworthiness.Catherine Z. Elgin - 2008 - Philosophical Papers 37 (3):371-387.
Revising Beliefs Towards the Truth.Ilkka Niiniluoto - 2011 - Erkenntnis 75 (2):165-181.
Rationality, reliability, and natural selection.Richard Feldman - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (June):218-27.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
108 (#163,032)

6 months
17 (#148,261)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher Stephens
University of British Columbia