Philosophy of Science 77 (2):236-272 (2010)
|Abstract||One of the fundamental problems of epistemology is to say when the evidence in an agent’s possession justifies the beliefs she holds. In this paper and its prequel, we defend the Bayesian solution to this problem by appealing to the following fundamental norm: Accuracy An epistemic agent ought to minimize the inaccuracy of her partial beliefs. In the prequel, we made this norm mathematically precise; in this paper, we derive its consequences. We show that the two core tenets of Bayesianism follow from the norm, while the characteristic claim of the Objectivist Bayesian follows from the norm along with an extra assumption. Finally, we consider Richard Jeffrey’s proposed generalization of conditionalization. We show not only that his rule cannot be derived from the norm, unless the requirement of Rigidity is imposed from the start, but further that the norm reveals it to be illegitimate. We end by deriving an alternative updating rule for those cases in which Jeffrey’s is usually supposed to apply.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Conor Mchugh (2012). The Truth Norm of Belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):8-30.
Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (2010). The Truth Norm and Guidance: A Reply to Gluer and Wikforss. Mind 119 (475):749-755.
Brian Kierland & Bradley Monton (2005). Minimizing Inaccuracy for Self-Locating Beliefs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):384-395.
Jon Williamson (2011). Objective Bayesianism, Bayesian Conditionalisation and Voluntarism. Synthese 178 (1):67-85.
Hannes Leitgeb & Richard Pettigrew (2010). An Objective Justification of Bayesianism I: Measuring Inaccuracy. Philosophy of Science 77 (2):201-235.
Added to index2009-11-21
Total downloads58 ( #16,814 of 548,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,091 of 548,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?