The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Ethics of Belief
Abstract
In this paper I will address a few of many questions that fall under general heading of the ethics of belief. In section I I will discuss adequacy of what has come to be known as deontological conception of epistemic justification in light of our apparent lack of voluntary control over what we believe. In section II I'll defend an evidentialist view about what we ought to believe. And in section III I will briefly discuss apparent conflicts between epistemic considerations and moral or other considerations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Justification and the Truth-Connection
Littlejohn, C. (2012) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139060097 · Cited by 530
Hieronymi, P. (2008) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9089-x · Cited by 437
“Choice-supportive bias” in science: Explanation and mitigation
Kafaee, M., Marhamati, H., & Gharibzadeh, S. (2021) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.1872377 · Cited by 12
Are Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Self-Debunking?
Kyriacou, C. (2016) · Philosophia · doi:10.1007/s11406-016-9780-1 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Feldman, R.
- Venue
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 667
- ISSN
- 0031-8205 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078420761
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 53.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Ethics of Belief. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2653823
- The paper
- Feldman, R. (2000). The Ethics of Belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653823
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
