Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Higher-Order Defeat and the Impossibility of Self-Misleading Evidence.Mattias Skipper - forthcoming - In Mattias Skipper & Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (eds.), Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays. Oxford University Press.
    Evidentialism is the thesis, roughly, that one’s beliefs should fit one’s evidence. The enkratic principle is the thesis, roughly, that one’s beliefs should "line up" with one’s beliefs about which beliefs one ought to have. While both theses have seemed attractive to many, they jointly entail the controversial thesis that self-misleading evidence is impossible. That is to say, if evidentialism and the enkratic principle are both true, one’s evidence cannot support certain false beliefs about which beliefs one’s evidence supports. Recently, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • On the Role of Explanatory and Systematic Power in Scientific Reasoning.Peter Brössel - 2015 - Synthese 192 (12):3877-3913.
    The paper investigates measures of explanatory power and how to define the inference schema “Inference to the Best Explanation”. It argues that these measures can also be used to quantify the systematic power of a hypothesis and the inference schema “Inference to the Best Systematization” is defined. It demonstrates that systematic power is a fruitful criterion for theory choice and IBS is truth-conducive. It also shows that even radical Bayesians must admit that systemic power is an integral component of Bayesian (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Joint Aggregation of Beliefs and Degrees of Belief.Paul D. Thorn - forthcoming - Synthese:1-21.
    The article proceeds upon the assumption that the beliefs and degrees of belief of rational agents satisfy a number of constraints, including: consistency and deductive closure for belief sets, conformity to the axioms of probability for degrees of belief, and the Lockean Thesis concerning the relationship between belief and degree of belief. Assuming that the beliefs and degrees of belief of both individuals and collectives satisfy the preceding three constraints, I discuss what further constraints may be imposed on the aggregation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Socratic Method, Defeasibility, and Doxastic Responsibility.Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay - 2018 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 50 (3):244-253.
    There is an extensive body of philosophical, educational, and popular literature explaining Socratic pedagogy’s epistemological and educational ambitions. However, there is virtually no literature clarifying the relationship between Socratic method and doxastic responsibility. This article fills that gap in the literature by arguing that the Socratic method models many of the features of an ideally doxastically responsible agent. It ties a robust notion of doxastic responsibility to the Socratic method by showing how using defeaters to undermine participants’ knowledge claims can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Logics for Moderate Belief-Disagreement Between Agents.Jia Chen & Tianqun Pan - 2019 - Studia Logica 107 (3):559-574.
    A moderate belief-disagreement between agents on proposition p means that one agent believes p and the other agent does not. This paper presents two logical systems, \ and \, that describe moderate belief-disagreement, and shows, using possible worlds semantics, that \ is sound and complete with respect to arbitrary frames, and \ is sound and complete with respect to serial frames. Syntactically, the logics are monomodal, but two doxastic accessibility relations are involved in their semantics. The notion of moderate belief-disagreement, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Peer Disagreement: A Call for the Revision of Prior Probabilities.Sven Rosenkranz & Moritz Schulz - 2015 - Dialectica 69 (4):551-586.
    The current debate about peer disagreement has so far mainly focused on the question of whether peer disagreements provide genuine counterevidence to which we should respond by revising our credences. By contrast, comparatively little attention has been devoted to the question by which process, if any, such revision should be brought about. The standard assumption is that we update our credences by conditionalizing on the evidence that peer disagreements provide. In this paper, we argue that non-dogmatist views have good reasons (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations