Believing Against the Evidence

<p>In this book McCormick argues that the standards used to evaluate beliefs are not isolated from other evaluative domains. The ultimate criteria for assessing beliefs are the same as those for assessing action because beliefs and actions are both products of agency. Two important implications of this thesis both of which deviate from the dominant view in contemporary philosophy are 1) it can be permissible (and possible) to believe for non-evidential reasons and 2) we have a robust control over many of our beliefs a control sufficient to ground attributions of responsibility for belief.</p>