Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):363-368 (2009)
Easwaran has given a definition of transferability and argued that, under this definition, randomized arguments are not transferable. I show that certain aspects of his definition are not suitable for addressing the underlying question of whether or not there is an epistemic distinction between randomized and deductive arguments. Furthermore, I demonstrate that for any suitable definition, randomized arguments are in fact transferable
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Probabilistic Proofs and Transferability.Kenny Easwaran - 2008 - Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):341-362.
The Epistemic Status of Probabilistic Proof.Don Fallis - 1997 - Journal of Philosophy 94 (4):165-186.
The Reliability of Randomized Algorithms.D. Fallis - 2000 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2):255-271.
Citations of this work BETA
Knowledge of Mathematics Without Proof.Alexander Paseau - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4):775-799.
Similar books and articles
New Foundations for Imperative Logic Iii: A General Definition of Argument Validity.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2012 - Manuscript in Preparation.
Why There's No Cause to Randomize.John Worrall - 2007 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (3):451-488.
Evidence-Based Medicine Must Be ..A. la Caze - 2009 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (5):509-527.
The Conflict Between Randomized Clinical Trials and the Therapeutic Obligation.Fred Gifford - 1986 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (4):347-366.
Transfering Saturation, the Finite Cover Property, and Stability.John T. Baldwin, Rami Grossberg & Saharon Shelah - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (2):678-684.
Added to index2009-10-05
Total downloads29 ( #173,202 of 2,154,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #224,989 of 2,154,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?