Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T16:11:14.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LAWS OF CREDENCE AND LAWS OF CHOICE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

Sophie Horowitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Accuracy and the Laws of Credence, Richard Pettigrew gives several decision-theoretic arguments for formal requirements on rational credence. Pettigrew's arguments build on a central notion of epistemic value, but employ different decision rules. These comments explore how our choice of decision rule might matter, and discuss one of Pettigrew's arguments in detail: his argument for the Principle of Indifference, which relies on Maximin.

Type
Symposium: Pettigrew's Accuracy and the Laws of Credence
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 31 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Harsanyi, J. C. 1975. ‘Can The Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory.’ American Political Science Review, 69: 594–606.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. 2014a. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. 2014b. ‘Accuracy, Risk, and the Principle of Indifference.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12097.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1974. ‘Some Reasons for the Maximin Criterion.’ American Economic Review, 64: 141–6.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. 2009. ‘Evidential Symmetry and Mushy Credence.’ Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 3: 161–86.Google Scholar