British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (1):89-119 (2008)
|Abstract||Your evidence constrains your rational degrees of confidence both locally and globally. On the one hand, particular bits of evidence can boost or diminish your rational degree of confidence in various hypotheses, relative to your background information. On the other hand, epistemic rationality requires that, for any hypothesis h, your confidence in h is proportional to the support that h receives from your total evidence. Why is it that your evidence has these two epistemic powers? I argue that various proposed accounts of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set cannot answer this question. I then propose an alternative account of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set. 1 Introduction 2 The elements of one's evidence set are propositions 3 Which kinds of propositions are in one's evidence set? 3.1 Doxastic accounts of evidence 3.2 Non-doxastic accounts of evidence 4 Elaborating and defending the LIE CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Aaron Rizzieri (2009). Evidence Does Not Equal Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 153 (2):235-242.
Kent W. Staley (2010). Evidence and Justification in Groups with Conflicting Background Beliefs. Episteme 7 (3):232-247.
Branden Fitelson & Richard Feldman (2012). Evidence of Evidence is Not (Necessarily) Evidence. Analysis 72 (1):85-88.
Peter Lipton (1990). Prediction and Prejudice. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (1):51 – 65.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #19,364 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,372 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?