Epistemology and probability

Noûs 17 (1):65-67 (1983)

Abstract
Probability is sometimes regarded as a universal panacea for epistemology. It has been supposed that the rationality of belief is almost entirely a matter of probabilities. Unfortunately, those philosophers who have thought about this most extensively have tended to be probability theorists first, and epistemologists only secondarily. In my estimation, this has tended to make them insensitive to the complexities exhibited by epistemic justification. In this paper I propose to turn the tables. I begin by laying out some rather simple and uncontroversial features of the structure of epistemic justification, and then go on to ask what we can conclude about the connection between epistemology and probability in the light of those features. My conclusion is that probability plays no central role in epistemology. This is not to say that probability plays no role at all. In the course of the investigation, I defend a pair of probabilistic acceptance rules which enable us, under some circumstances, to arrive at justified belief on the basis of high probability. But these rules are of quite limited scope. The effect of there being such rules is merely that probability provides one source for justified belief, on a par with perception, memory, etc. There is no way probability can provide a universal cure for all our epistemological ills.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00485070
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: 45,599
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Accuracy, Coherence, and Evidence.Branden Fitelson & Kenny Easwaran - 2015 - Oxford Studies in Epistemology 5:61-96.
Belief and Credence: Why the Attitude-Type Matters.Elizabeth Grace Jackson - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (9):2477-2496.
Rational Self-Doubt and the Failure of Closure.Joshua Schechter - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):428-452.
Defeasible Reasoning.John L. Pollock - 1987 - Cognitive Science 11 (4):481-518.

View all 23 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Justification Could Not Be.Mark T. Nelson - 2002 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (3):265 – 281.
Bayesian Epistemology.Stephan Hartmann & Jan Sprenger - 2010 - In Duncan Pritchard & Sven Bernecker (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Epistemology. London: Routledge. pp. 609-620.
A Theistic Conception of Probability.Richard Otte - 1987 - Faith and Philosophy 4 (4):427-447.
Pollock on Probability in Epistemology. [REVIEW]Branden Fitelson - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (3):455 - 465.
Harold Jeffreys' Probabilistic Epistemology: Between Logicism and Subjectivism.Maria Carla Galavotti - 2003 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (1):43-57.
Coherentism, Truth, and Witness Agreement.William A. Roche - 2010 - Acta Analytica 25 (2):243-257.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
77 ( #111,976 of 2,280,598 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #835,594 of 2,280,598 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature