David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence 133:233-282 (2001)
The question addressed in this paper is how the degree of justification of a belief is determined. A conclusion may be supported by several different arguments, the arguments typically being defeasible, and there may also be arguments of varying strengths for defeaters for some of the supporting arguments. What is sought is a way of computing the “on sum” degree of justification of a conclusion in terms of the degrees of justification of all relevant premises and the strengths of all relevant reasons.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Causey (1991). The Epistemic Basis of Defeasible Reasoning. Minds and Machines 1 (4):437-458.
Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (2010). Is There a Viable Account of Well-Founded Belief? Erkenntnis 72 (2):205 - 231.
Albert Casullo (2008). Defeasible a Priori Justification: A Reply to Thurow. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):336–343.
Michael Huemer (2001). The Problem of Defeasible Justification. Erkenntnis 54 (3):375-397.
Mikael Janvid (2008). The Experiential Defeasibility and Overdetermination of A Priori Justification. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:271-278.
Gregor Betz (2012). On Degrees of Justification. Erkenntnis 77 (2):237-272.
Pollock † & L. John (2011). Defeasible Reasoning and Degrees of Justification. Argument and Computation 1 (1):7-22.
John L. Pollock (1991). Self-Defeating Arguments. Minds and Machines 1 (4):367-392.
Andrew D. Cling (2003). Self-Supporting Arguments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):279–303.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #46,511 of 1,013,315 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,295 of 1,013,315 )
How can I increase my downloads?