Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Bayesianism and inference to the best explanation.Valeraino Iranzo - unknown
    Bayesianism and Inference to the best explanation are two different models of inference. Recently there has been some debate about the possibility of “bayesianizing” IBE. Firstly I explore several alternatives to include explanatory considerations in Bayes’s Theorem. Then I distinguish two different interpretations of prior probabilities: “IBE-Bayesianism” and “frequentist-Bayesianism”. After detailing the content of the latter, I propose a rule for assessing the priors. I also argue that Freq-Bay: endorses a role for explanatory value in the assessment of scientific hypotheses; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Replies to Selim Berker and Karl Schafer.Anil Gupta - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 152 (1):41 - 53.
    I respond to six objections, raised by Selim Berker and Karl Schafer, against the theory offered in my Empiricism and Experience: (1) that the theory needs a problematic notion of subjective character of experience; (2) that the transition from the hypothetical to the categorical fails because of a logical difficulty; (3) that the constraints imposed on admissible views are too weak; (4) that the theory does not deserve the label 'empiricism'; (5) that the motivations provided for the Reliability constraint are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Replies to six critics.Anil Gupta - 2009 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (2):329 – 343.
    I want to thank my critics not only for their attention to my book but also for their hospitality in Valencia, where they first presented me with their stimulating and wide‐ranging criticisms. 1 Th...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Adam Marushak on the hypothetical given.Anil Gupta - 2020 - Philosophical Issues 30 (1):167-174.
    Adam Marushak raises a dilemma for the proponents of the hypothetical given. On one of its horns, the proponents are said to be committed to rationalism; and on the other horn, to skepticism. I argue, in response, that even if we grant that the arguments of both horns are sound, the commitments incurred are light and unproblematic. I argue also that the dilemma is based on a reading of the hypothetical that, though valuable, needs to be refined in light of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation