Seyed Ali Kalantari; Meghdad Ghari
Abstract
On the basis of the normativity of belief thesis in Epistemology, there is a normative relation between a belief and its content. On the basis of a well-known formulation of the Relation, which we call the narrow-scope norm of Truth, “one ought to (believe that p) iff p is true”. Our focus, ...
Read More
On the basis of the normativity of belief thesis in Epistemology, there is a normative relation between a belief and its content. On the basis of a well-known formulation of the Relation, which we call the narrow-scope norm of Truth, “one ought to (believe that p) iff p is true”. Our focus, in this paper concerns the explanatory role of the truth norm of belief with regard to the norm of evidence, according to which "one ought to (believe that p) iff evidence supports its truth"; we will call the latter norm, the narrow-scope norm of evidence. On the basis of the idea, evidence is not independently valuable, but their normativity pro producing beliefs depends on the truth norm of belief. In another words, as evidence typically point toward truth and that, according to the truth norm of belief, forming beliefs are constrained normatively by truth, it follows that beliefs are constrained normatively by evidence as well. After specifying the idea, we will consider the wide-scope norm of belief, according to which “one ought to (believe that p iff p is true)”. Our claim which we are going to argue for is that the wide-scope norm of truth has a better explanatory role with respect to evidence in comparison with the narrow-scope norm of belief.
