Joyce’s Argument for Probabilism

Philosophy of Science 69 (1):73-81 (2002)
Abstract
James Joyce's 'Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism' gives a new argument for the conclusion that a person's credences ought to satisfy the laws of probability. The premises of Joyce's argument include six axioms about what counts as an adequate measure of the distance of a credence function from the truth. This paper shows that (a) Joyce's argument for one of these axioms is invalid, (b) his argument for another axiom has a false premise, (c) neither axiom is plausible, and (d) without these implausible axioms Joyce's vindication of probabilism fails.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/338941
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: 34,999
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Immoderately Rational.Sophie Horowitz - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (1):41-56.
How Does Coherence Matter?Niko Kolodny - 2007 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt3):229 - 263.
What Accuracy Could Not Be.Graham Oddie - 2017 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axx032.
Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism?A. Hajek - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793-819.
You’Ve Come a Long Way, Bayesians.Jonathan Weisberg - 2015 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 44 (6):817-834.

View all 15 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
65 ( #97,268 of 2,275,138 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #70,909 of 2,275,138 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature