Abstract
We have three goals in this paper. First, we outline an ontology of stance, and explain the role that modes of engagement and styles of reasoning play in the characterization of a stance. Second, we argue that we do enjoy a degree of control over the modes of engagement and styles of reasoning we adopt. Third, we contend that maximizing one’s prospects for change (within the framework of other constraints, e.g., beliefs, one has) also maximizes one’s rationality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alston W.P. (1989) Epistemic justification: Esays in the theory of knowledge. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Bartley, W. W. (1984). The retreat to commitment (2nd ed.). La Salle: Open Court.
Booth A.R. (2007) Can there be epistemic reasons for action?. Grazer Philosophische Studien 73: 162–173
da Costa N.C.A., Bueno O. (2001) Paraconsistency: Towards a tentative interpretation. Theoria, 16: 119–145
Jones, W. E. (Ed.) (2003). Special issue on controlling belief. The Monist 85(3).
Kuhn T.S. (1970) Reflection on my critics. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 231–278
Macleod A. (1986) Self-interest, rationality, and equality. In: Garver N., Hare P.H. (eds) Naturalism and rationality. Prometheus, Buffalo, NY
Popper K.R. (1968) Remarks on the problems of demarcation and of rationality. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A. (eds) Problems in the philosophy of science. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 88–102
Ratcliffe, M. J. (2003). Review of Solomon (2003). Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
Rowbottom D.P. (2005) The empirical stance vs. the critical attitude. South African Journal of Philosophy 24: 200–223
Rowbottom D.P. (2006) Kuhn versus Popper on science education: A response to Richard Bailey. Learning for Democracy 2(3): 45–52
Rowbottom D.P. (2008) An alternative account of epistemic reasons for action: In response to Booth. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76: 191–198
Rowbottom, D. P. (forthcoming). Popper’s critical rationalism: A philosophical investigation. London: Routledge.
Rowbottom D.P., Bueno O. (2009) Why advocate pancritical rationalism?. In: Parusniková., Cohen R.S. (eds) Rethinking Popper. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 81–89
Solomon R. (2003) Not passion’s slave: Emotions and choice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Steup M. (2000) Doxastic voluntarism and epistemic deontology. Acta Analytica 15: 25–56
Steup M. (2008) Doxastic freedom. Synthese 161: 375–392
Teller P. (2004) What is a stance?. Philosophical Studies 121: 159–170
van Fraassen B.C. (2002) The empirical stance. Yale University Press, New Haven
van Fraassen B.C. (2004) Replies to discussion on the empirical stance. Philosophical Studies 121: 171–192
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rowbottom, D.P., Bueno, O. How to change it: modes of engagement, rationality, and stance voluntarism. Synthese 178, 7–17 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9521-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9521-0