Switch to: References

Citations of:

Abduction

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Drives as Inverted Forms: Nietzsche’s Correction of Socrates’s Philosophical Psychology (As pulsões como formas invertidas: a correção de Nietzsche à psicologia filosófica de Sócrates).Brian Lightbody - 2024 - Kalagatos 21 (2):1-28.
    A recent paper by Tom Stern suggests that Socrates’s philosophical psychology, which emphasizes rational reflection, is superior to Nietzsche’s drive model when explaining human behavior. I argue that Stern’s analysis is wrong on three fronts. First, the models share common, though inverted, features. Second, Stern fails to consider the role of Socrates’s daimon when evaluating Socrates’s philosophy of mind; third, Nietzsche’s model is more warranted. In sum, Nietzsche’s philosophical psychology is a correction of the Socratic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • A Stochastic Model of Mathematics and Science.David H. Wolpert & David B. Kinney - 2024 - Foundations of Physics 54 (2):1-67.
    We introduce a framework that can be used to model both mathematics and human reasoning about mathematics. This framework involves stochastic mathematical systems (SMSs), which are stochastic processes that generate pairs of questions and associated answers (with no explicit referents). We use the SMS framework to define normative conditions for mathematical reasoning, by defining a “calibration” relation between a pair of SMSs. The first SMS is the human reasoner, and the second is an “oracle” SMS that can be interpreted as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Epistemic Probabilities are Degrees of Support, not Degrees of (Rational) Belief.Nevin Climenhaga - 2024 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 108 (1):153-176.
    I argue that when we use ‘probability’ language in epistemic contexts—e.g., when we ask how probable some hypothesis is, given the evidence available to us—we are talking about degrees of support, rather than degrees of belief. The epistemic probability of A given B is the mind-independent degree to which B supports A, not the degree to which someone with B as their evidence believes A, or the degree to which someone would or should believe A if they had B as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations