Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Tom Kelly argues that instrumentalist accounts of epistemic rationality fail because what a person has reason to believe does not depend upon the content of his or her goals. However, his argument fails to distinguish questions about what the evidence supports from questions about what a person ought to believe . Once these are distinguished, the instrumentalist can avoid Kelly’s objections. The paper concludes by sketching what I take to be the most defensible version of the instrumentalist view.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam Leite (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: