Synthese (Suppl 23):1-10 (2020)

Authors
Abstract
How we can reliably draw inferences from data, evidence and/or experience has been and continues to be a pressing question in everyday life, the sciences, politics and a number of branches in philosophy (traditional epistemology, social epistemology, formal epistemology, logic and philosophy of the sciences). In a world in which we can now longer fully rely on our experiences, interlocutors, measurement instruments, data collection and storage systems and even news outlets to draw reliable inferences, the issue becomes even more pressing. While we were working on this question using a formal epistemology approach Landes and Osimani (2020); De Pretis et al. (2019); Osimani and Landes (2020); Osimani (2020), we realised that the width of current active interests in the notion of reliability was much broader than we initially thought. Given the breadth of approaches and angles present in philosophy (even in this journal Schubert 2012; Avigad 2021; Claveau and Grenier 2019; Kummerfeld and Danks 2014; Landes 2021; Trpin et al. 2021; Schippers 2014; Schindler 2011; Kelly et al. 2016; Mayo-Wilson 2014; Olsson and Schubert 2007; Pittard 2017), we thought that it would be beneficial to provide a forum for an open exchange of ideas, in which philosophers working in different paradigms could come together. Our call for expression of interest received a great variety of promised manuscripts, the variety is reflected in the published papers. They range from fields far away from our own interests such as quantum probabilities de Ronde et al. (2021), evolvable software systems Primiero et al. (2021), to topics closer to our own research in the philosophy of medicine Lalumera et al. (2020), psychology Dutilh et al. (2021), traditional epistemology Dunn (2021); Tolly (2021) to finally close shared interests in formal epistemology Romero and Sprenger (2021) even within our own department Merdes et al. (2021). Our job is now to reliably inform you about all the contributions in the papers in this special issue. Unfortunately, that task is beyond our capabilities. What we can and instead do is to summarise the contributed papers to inform your reliable inference to read them all in great detail.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-020-02725-w
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,262
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Bayesian Epistemology.Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann - 2003 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Generality Problem for Reliabilism. E. Conee & R. Feldman - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 89 (1):1-29.
A Well-Founded Solution to the Generality Problem.Juan Comesaña - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 129 (1):27-47.
Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a Truly Social Epistemology.Miranda Fricker - 1998 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):159–177.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reliability as a Virtue.Robert Audi - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 142 (1):43 - 54.
Against Transglobal Reliabilism.Peter J. Graham - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 169 (3):525-535.
Is There a Reliability Challenge for Logic?Joshua Schechter - 2018 - Philosophical Issues 28 (1):325-347.
Reliability and Justified Belief.John L. Pollock - 1984 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 14 (1):103 - 114.
Reliability of Information on the Internet: Some Distinctions.Anton Vedder & Robert Wachbroit - 2003 - Ethics and Information Technology 5 (4):211-215.
How Abstract Objects Strike Us.Michael Liston - 1994 - Dialectica 48 (1):3-27.
Reliability in Mathematical Physics.Michael Liston - 1993 - Philosophy of Science 60 (1):1-21.
Reliability in Plantinga´ s Account of Epistemic Warrant.John Wingard Jr - 2002 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 6 (2):249-278.
Reliability in Plantinga´s Account of Epistemic Warrant.John C. Wingard Jr - 2002 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 6 (2):149-278.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-06-18

Total views
23 ( #476,792 of 2,455,615 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #98,341 of 2,455,615 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes