British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539-563 (2002)
|Abstract||Corroborating Testimony, Probability and Surprise’, Erik J. Olsson ascribes to L. Jonathan Cohen the claims that if two witnesses provide us with the same information, then the less probable the information is, the more confident we may be that the information is true (C), and the stronger the information is corroborated (C*). We question whether Cohen intends anything like claims (C) and (C*). Furthermore, he discusses the concurrence of witness reports within a context of independent witnesses, whereas the witnesses in Olsson's model are not independent in the standard sense. We argue that there is much more than, in Olsson's words, ‘a grain of truth’ to claim (C), both on his own characterization as well as on Cohen's characterization of the witnesses. We present an analysis for independent witnesses in the contexts of decision-making under risk and decision-making under uncertainty and generalize the model for n witnesses. As to claim (C*), Olsson's argument is contingent on the choice of a particular measure of corroboration and is not robust in the face of alternative measures. Finally, we delimit the set of cases to which Olsson's model is applicable. 1 Claim (C) examined for Olsson's characterization of the relationship between the witnesses 2 Claim (C) examined for two or more independent witnesses 3 Robustness and multiple measures of corroboration 4 Discussion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Tomoji Shogenji (2008). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, Justification. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (1):292-296.
Erik J. Olsson & Martin L. Jönsson (2011). Kinds of Learning and the Likelihood of Future True Beliefs: Reply to Jäger on Reliabilism and the Value Problem. Theoria 77 (3):214-222.
Erik J. Olsson (2009). In Defense of the Conditional Probability Solution to the Swamping Problem. Grazer Philosophische Studien 79 (1):93-114.
Gregory Wheeler (2012). Explaining the Limits of Olsson's Impossibility Result. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):136-150.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). Against Coherence: Truth, Probability, and Justification. Oxford University Press.
Christoph Jäger (2011). Reliability and Future True Belief: Reply to Olsson and Jönsson. Theoria 77 (3):223-237.
Erik J. Olsson (2002). Corroborating Testimony, Probability and Surprise. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):273-288.
Erik J. Olsson (2002). Corroborating Testimony and Ignorance: A Reply to Bovens, Fitelson, Hartmann and Snyder. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):565-572.
Branden Fitelson (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539 - 563.
Stephan Hartmann, Luc Bovens, Branden Fitelson & Josh Snyder (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True: A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539-563.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,679 of 722,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?