|Abstract||Conditionalization is an intuitive and popular epistemic principle. By contrast, the Reﬂection principle is well known to have some very unappealing consequences. But van Fraassen argues that Conditionalization entails Reﬂection, so that proponents of Conditionalization must accept Reﬂection and its consequences. Van Fraassen also argues that Reﬂection implies Conditionalization, thus oﬀering a new justiﬁcation for Conditionalization. I argue that neither principle entails the other, and thus neither can be used to motivate the other in the way van Fraassen says. I also propose a replacement for Reﬂection that accounts for the intuitions that made Reﬂection appealing, but doesn’t lead to Reﬂection’s bad consequences.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hartry Field (1978). A Note on Jeffrey Conditionalization. Philosophy of Science 45 (3):361-367.
Rachael Briggs (2009). Distorted Reflection. Philosophical Review 118 (1):59-85.
Matthias Hild (1998). The Coherence Argument Against Conditionalization. Synthese 115 (2):229-258.
R. I. G. Hughes & Bas C. Van Fraassen (1984). Symmetry Arguments in Probability Kinematics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:851 - 869.
Hilary Greaves & David Wallace (2006). Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility. Mind 115 (459):607-632.
Jonathan Weisberg (2009). Commutativity or Holism? A Dilemma for Conditionalizers. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):793 - 812.
Terry Horgan & Anna Mahtani (2013). Generalized Conditionalization and the Sleeping Beauty Problem. Erkenntnis 78 (2):333-351.
Jonathan Weisberg (2007). Conditionalization, Reflection, and Self-Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 135 (2):179-97.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads88 ( #8,087 of 549,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?