Ideal counterpart theorizing and the accuracy argument for probabilism

Analysis 78 (2):207-216 (2018)

Authors
Clinton Castro
Florida International University
Abstract
One of the main goals of Bayesian epistemology is to justify the rational norms credence functions ought to obey. Accuracy arguments attempt to justify these norms from the assumption that the source of value for credences relevant to their epistemic status is their accuracy. This assumption and some standard decision-theoretic principles are used to argue for norms like Probabilism, the thesis that an agent’s credence function is rational only if it obeys the probability axioms. We introduce an example that shows that the accuracy arguments for Probabilism given by Joyce and Pettigrew fail, and that Probabilism in fact turns out to be false given Pettigrew’s way of conceiving of the goal of having accurate credences. Finally, we use our discussion of Pettigrew’s framework to draw an important general lesson about normative theorizing that relies on the positing of ideal agents.
Keywords Accuracy first epistemology  Arguments for probabilism  Bayesian epistemology
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/anx107
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 42,236
External links

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

Accuracy and the Laws of Credence.Richard Pettigrew - 2016 - Oxford University Press UK.
A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.James Joyce - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (4):575-603.
Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief.James Joyce - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of Belief. Synthese. pp. 263-297.
Epistemic Utility Theory and the Aim of Belief.Jennifer Rose Carr - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (3):511-534.
The Foundations of Statistics.Leonard J. Savage - 1954 - Philosophy of Science 23 (2):166-166.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Accuracy and Evidence.Richard Pettigrew - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (4):579-596.
Arguments For—Or Against—Probabilism?Alan Hájek - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 229--251.
Who Cares What You Accurately Believe?Clayton Littlejohn - 2015 - Philosophical Perspectives 29 (1):217-248.
Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism.Patrick Maher - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (1):73-81.
Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism&Quest;: Articles.Alan H.ájek - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793-819.
Accuracy for Believers.Julia Staffel - 2017 - Episteme 14 (1):39-48.
Gradational Accuracy and Nonclassical Semantics.J. Robert G. Williams - 2012 - Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (4):513-537.
Chance, Credence and Circles.Fabrizio Cariani - 2017 - Episteme 14 (1):49-58.
Rational Probabilistic Incoherence.Michael Caie - 2013 - Philosophical Review 122 (4):527-575.
Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle.Richard Pettigrew - 2012 - Philosophical Review 121 (2):241-275.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-08-03

Total views
115 ( #65,811 of 2,254,263 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #103,652 of 2,254,263 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature