David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (2):273-288 (2002)
Jonathan Cohen has claimed that in cases of witness agreement there is an inverse relationship between the prior probability and the posterior probability of what is being agreed: the posterior rises as the prior falls. As is demonstrated in this paper, this contention is not generally valid. In fact, in the most straightforward case exactly the opposite is true: a lower prior also means a lower posterior. This notwithstanding, there is a grain of truth to what Cohen is saying, as there are special circumstances under which a thesis similar to his holds good. What characterises these circumstances is that they allow for the fact of agreement to be surprising. In making this precise, I draw on Paul Horwich's probabilistic analysis of surprise. I also consider a related claim made by Cohen concerning the effect of lowering the prior on the strength of corroboration. 1 Introduction 2 Cohen's claim 3 A counterexample 4 A weaker claim 5 A counterexample to the weaker claim 6 The grain of truth in Cohen's claim 7 Prior probability and strength of corroboration 8 Conclusion.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Stefan Schubert (2012). Coherence Reasoning and Reliability: A Defense of the Shogenji Measure. Synthese 187 (2):305-319.
Erik J. Olsson (2005). The Impossibility of Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):387 - 412.
Erik J. Olsson & Stefan Schubert (2007). Reliability Conducive Measures of Coherence. Synthese 157 (3):297 - 308.
Stefan Schubert & Erik J. Olsson (2012). On the Coherence of Higher-Order Beliefs. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):112-135.
David Harker (2012). A Surprise for Horwich (and Some Advocates of the Fine-Tuning Argument (Which Does Not Include Horwich (as Far as I Know))). Philosophical Studies 161 (2):247-261.
Similar books and articles
William A. Roche (2010). Coherentism, Truth, and Witness Agreement. Acta Analytica 25 (2):243-257.
Hilary Greaves & David Wallace (2006). Justifying Conditionalisation: Conditionalisation Maximises Expected Epistemic Utility. Mind 115 (459):607-632.
R. G. Swinburne (1972). Cohen on Evidential Support. Mind 81 (322):244-248.
Carl G. Wagner (1992). Generalized Probability Kinematics. Erkenntnis 36 (2):245 - 257.
Joseph B. Kadane, Mark J. Schervish & Teddy Seidenfeld (1996). When Several Bayesians Agree That There Will Be No Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):289.
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.
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.
Branden Fitelson (2002). Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (4):539 - 563.
Luc Bovens, Branden Fitelson, Stephan Hartmann & 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 downloads18 ( #205,977 of 1,906,923 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,570 of 1,906,923 )
How can I increase my downloads?