|Abstract||Abner Shimony (1988) argues that degrees of belief satisfy the axioms of probability because their epistemic goal is to match estimates of objective probabilities. Because the estimates obey the axioms of probability, degrees of belief must also obey them to reach their epistemic goal. This calibration argument meets some objections, but with a few revisions it can surmount those objections. It offers a good alternative to the Dutch book argument for compliance with the probability axioms. The defense of Shimony's calibration argument examines rational pursuit of an epistemic goal, introduces strength of evidence and its measurement, and distinguishes epistemic goals and functions.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Colin Howson (1992). Dutch Book Arguments and Consistency. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:161 - 168.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2007). The Insufficiency of the Dutch Book Argument. Studia Logica 87 (1):65 - 71.
Brian Weatherson (forthcoming). From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44 (2):111-123.
Alan Hájek (2008). Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793 - 819.
Gregory Wheeler (2012). Objective Bayesian Calibration and the Problem of Non-Convex Evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (4):841-850.
James M. Joyce (1998). A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism. Philosophy of Science 65 (4):575-603.
Teddy Seidenfeld (1985). Calibration, Coherence, and Scoring Rules. Philosophy of Science 52 (2):274-294.
Frank Lad (1984). The Calibration Question. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (3):213-221.
Added to index2009-09-02
Total downloads21 ( #58,716 of 549,064 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,064 )
How can I increase my downloads?