Credence for conclusions: a brief for Jeffrey’s rule

Synthese:1-22 (forthcoming)

Authors
John R. Welch
Saint Louis University
Abstract
Some arguments are good; others are not. How can we tell the difference? This article advances three proposals as a partial answer to this question. The proposals are keyed to arguments conditioned by different degrees of uncertainty: mild, where the argument’s premises are hedged with point-valued probabilities; moderate, where the premises are hedged with interval probabilities; and severe, where the premises are hedged with non-numeric plausibilities such as ‘very likely’ or ‘unconfirmed’. For mild uncertainty, the article proposes to apply a principle referred to as ‘Jeffrey’s rule’, for the principle is a generalization of Jeffrey conditionalization. For moderate uncertainty, the proposal is to extend Jeffrey’s rule for use with probability intervals. For severe uncertainty, the article proposes that even when lack of probabilistic information prevents the application of Jeffrey’s rule, the rule can be adapted to these conditions with the aid of a suitable plausibility measure. Together, the three proposals introduce an approach to argument evaluation that complements established frameworks for evaluating arguments: deductive soundness, informal logic, argumentation schemes, pragma-dialectics, and Bayesian inference. Nevertheless, this approach can be looked at as a generalization of the truth and validity conditions of the classical criterion for sound argumentation.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-018-1782-z
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: 38,928
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

Reason and the Grain of Belief.Scott Sturgeon - 2008 - Noûs 42 (1):139–165.
In Defence of the Value Free Ideal.Gregor Betz - 2013 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2):207-220.
The Probabilities of Conditionals Revisited.Igor Douven & Sara Verbrugge - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (4):711-730.

View all 46 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Jeffrey's Rule of Conditioning.Glenn Shafer - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (3):337-362.
Uncertain Premises and Jeffrey's Rule.David E. Over & Constantinos Hadjichristidis - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (1):97-98.
Conditionalization and Rational Belief Change.Susan Nicolet Vineberg - 1992 - Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
Understanding Conditionalization.Christopher J. G. Meacham - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (5):767-797.
Why Bayesian Psychology Is Incomplete.Frank Doring - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (S1):S379 - S389.
Why Bayesian Psychology is Incomplete.Frank Döring - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):389.
Quantum Logic and the Luders Rule.Allen Stairs - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (3):422-436.
Sleeping Beauty and De Nunc Updating.Namjoong Kim - 2010 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-05-12

Total views
17 ( #415,828 of 2,319,058 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #172,673 of 2,319,058 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature