Testimony as Evidence: More Problems for Linear Pooling [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (6):983-999 (2012)
This paper considers a special case of belief updating—when an agent learns testimonial data, or in other words, the beliefs of others on some issue. The interest in this case is twofold: (1) the linear averaging method for updating on testimony is somewhat popular in epistemology circles, and it is important to assess its normative acceptability, and (2) this facilitates a more general investigation of what it means/requires for an updating method to have a suitable Bayesian representation (taken here as the normative standard). The paper initially defends linear averaging against Bayesian-compatibility concerns raised by Bradley (Soc Choice Welf 29:609-632, 2007), as well as problems associated with multiple testimony updates. The resolution of these issues, however, requires an extremely nuanced interpretation of the parameters of the linear averaging model—the so-called weights of respect. We go on to propose a role that the parameters of any 'shortcut' updating function should play, by way of minimal interpretation of these parameters. The class of updating functions that is consistent with this role, however, excludes linear averaging, at least in its standard form
|Keywords||Testimony Linear pooling Bayesian belief change|
|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
David Christensen (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Adam Elga (2007). Reflection and Disagreement. Noûs 41 (3):478–502.
Branden Fitelson & David Jehle (2009). What is the “Equal Weight View'? Episteme 6 (3):280-293.
Carl G. Wagner (2002). Probability Kinematics and Commutativity. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):266-278.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Philip Pettit (2006). No Testimonial Route to Consensus. Episteme 3 (3):156-165.
Arnon Keren (2012). On the Alleged Perversity of the Evidential View of Testimony. Analysis 72 (4):700-707.
Sanford C. Goldberg (2006). Testimony as Evidence. Philosophica 78.
Tomoji Shogenji (2006). A Defense of Reductionism About Testimonial Justification of Beliefs. Noûs 40 (2):331–346.
Frederick Eberhardt (2008). A Sufficient Condition for Pooling Data. Synthese 163 (3):433 - 442.
Jennifer Lackey (2006). The Nature of Testimony. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):177–197.
Matthew Carl Weiner (2003). Testimony: Evidence and Responsibility. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Andrew Cullison (2010). On the Nature of Testimony. Episteme 7 (2):114-127.
James Pryor (2013). Problems for Credulism. In Chris Tucker (ed.), Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism.
Douglas N. Walton (2008). Witness Testimony Evidence: Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law. Cambridge University Press.
By Matthew Weiner (2003). Accepting Testimony. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):256–264.
Carl Wagner (2010). Jeffrey Conditioning and External Bayesianity. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18 (2):336-345.
C. A. J. Coady (1973). Testimony and Observation. American Philosophical Quarterly 108 (2):149-55.
Added to index2012-05-04
Total downloads23 ( #180,627 of 1,938,720 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #290,621 of 1,938,720 )
How can I increase my downloads?