Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLevy, Neil
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-05T11:44:46Z
dc.date.available2021-05-05T11:44:46Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttps://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/48492
dc.description.abstractIn popular, philosophical and many scientific accounts of addiction, strong desires and other affective states carry a great deal of the explanatory burden. Much less of a role is given to cognitive states than to affective. But as Pickard and Ahmed (2016; see also Pickard 2016) note, addiction may be as much or more a disorder of cognition as of compulsion or desire. Pickard’s focus is on denial. In this chapter my focus will be different. I will argue that in many cases at least, we can explain the lapses of abstinent addicts by way of processes that do not involve motivated reasoning (as denial or self-deception plausibly do). Mechanisms that have the role of updating beliefs in response to evidence may alter addicts’ judgments concerning what they have most reason to do (in the precise circumstances in which they find themselves), and thereby cause them to act accordinglyen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subject.classificationthema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JB Society and culture: general::JBF Social and ethical issues::JBFN Health, illness and addiction: social aspectsen_US
dc.subject.otheraddictionen_US
dc.titleChapter 5 Addictionen_US
dc.title.alternativeThe belief oscillation hypothesisen_US
dc.typechapter
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bben_US
oapen.relation.isPartOfBook2186a634-f836-44b4-aa04-03eff710ce54en_US
oapen.relation.isFundedByd859fbd3-d884-4090-a0ec-baf821c9abfden_US
oapen.relation.isbn9781315689197en_US
oapen.relation.isbn9781138909281en_US
oapen.collectionWellcomeen_US
oapen.imprintRoutledgeen_US
oapen.pages10en_US
oapen.grant.numberWT104848/Z/14/Z
peerreview.anonymitySingle-anonymised
peerreview.idbc80075c-96cc-4740-a9f3-a234bc2598f1
peerreview.open.reviewNo
peerreview.publish.responsibilityPublisher
peerreview.review.stagePre-publication
peerreview.review.typeProposal
peerreview.reviewer.typeInternal editor
peerreview.reviewer.typeExternal peer reviewer
peerreview.titleProposal review
oapen.review.commentsTaylor & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required).


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record