: Evidence claims depend on fallible assumptions. This paper discusses inferential robustness as a strategy for justifying evidence claims in spite of this fallibility. I argue that robustness can be understood as a means of establishing the partial security of evidence claims. An evidence claim is secure relative to an epistemic situation if it remains true in all scenarios that are epistemically possible relative to that epistemic situation.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism.Kent W. Staley - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism.Kent Staley - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Economic Modelling as Robustness Analysis.J. Kuorikoski, A. Lehtinen & C. Marchionni - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):541-567.
Evidence and Justification in Groups with Conflicting Background Beliefs.Kent W. Staley - 2010 - Episteme 7 (3):232-247.
Robustness, Discordance, and Relevance.Jacob Stegenga - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):650-661.
Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims.Kent W. Staley - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (4):467-488.
Added to index2010-02-20
Total downloads36 ( #142,816 of 2,168,588 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #187,166 of 2,168,588 )
How can I increase my downloads?