Philosophical Studies 148 (3) (2010)
|Abstract||In Thinking and Acting John Pollock offers some criticisms of Bayesian epistemology, and he defends an alternative understanding of the role of probability in epistemology. Here, I defend the Bayesian against some of Pollock's criticisms, and I discuss a potential problem for Pollock's alternative account.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gregory Wheeler & Jon Williamson (2011). Evidential Probability and Objective Bayesian Epistemology. In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Statistics. Elsevier.
John Pollock (1992). The Theory of Nomic Probability. Synthese 90 (2):263 - 299.
John L. Pollock (1992). The Theory of Nomic Probability. Synthese 90 (2):263 - 299.
Timothy Schroeder (2010). Desire and Pleasure in John Pollock's Thinking About Acting. Philosophical Studies 148 (3):447–454.
Stephan Hartmann & Jan Sprenger (forthcoming). Bayesian Epistemology. In Duncan Pritchard & Sven Bernecker (eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology. Routledge.
Wolfgang Spohn (2002). A Brief Comparison of Pollock's Defeasible Reasoning and Ranking Functions. Synthese 131 (1):39-56.
John L. Pollock (1990). Nomic Probability and the Foundations of Induction. Oxford University Press.
John A. Barker (1983). Abstract of Comments: Pollock on Epistemology and Probability. Noûs 17 (1):68 - 69.
John L. Pollock (1983). Epistemology and Probability. Noûs 17 (1):65-67.
Added to index2009-07-04
Total downloads48 ( #22,402 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?