Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Judgment Under Uncertainty Revisited: Probability vs Confirmation.Branden Fitelson - unknown
    Carnap [1] aims to provide a formal explication of an informal concept (relation) he calls “confirmation”. He clarifies “E confirms H” in various ways, including: (∗) E provides some positive evidential support for H. His formal explication of “E confirms H” (in [1]) is: (1) E confirms H iff Pr(H | E) > r, where Pr is a suitable (“logical”) probability function, and r is a threshold value.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Interpretation psychologized.Alvin I. Goldman - 1989 - Mind and Language 4 (3):161-85.
    The aim of this paper is to study interpretation, specifically, to work toward an account of interpretation that seems descriptively and explanatorily correct. No account of interpretation can be philosophically helpful, I submit, if it is incompatible with a correct account of what people actually do when they interpret others. My question, then, is: how does the (naive) interpreter arrive at his/her judgments about the mental attitudes of others? Philosophers who have addressed this question have not, in my view, been (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   365 citations  
  • Is the mind Bayesian? The case for agnosticism.Jean Baratgin & Guy Politzer - 2006 - Mind and Society 5 (1):1-38.
    This paper aims to make explicit the methodological conditions that should be satisfied for the Bayesian model to be used as a normative model of human probability judgment. After noticing the lack of a clear definition of Bayesianism in the psychological literature and the lack of justification for using it, a classic definition of subjective Bayesianism is recalled, based on the following three criteria: an epistemic criterion, a static coherence criterion and a dynamic coherence criterion. Then it is shown that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • How the conjunction fallacy is tied to probabilistic confirmation: Some remarks on Schupbach (2009).Katya Tentori & Vincenzo Crupi - 2012 - Synthese 184 (1):3-12.
    Crupi et al. (Think Reason 14:182–199, 2008) have recently advocated and partially worked out an account of the conjunction fallacy phenomenon based on the Bayesian notion of confirmation. In response, Schupbach (2009) presented a critical discussion as following from some novel experimental results. After providing a brief restatement and clarification of the meaning and scope of our original proposal, we will outline Schupbach’s results and discuss his interpretation thereof arguing that they do not actually undermine our point of view if (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Jaakko Hintikka.Isaac Levi - 2004 - Synthese 140 (1-2):37 - 41.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: Probability versus inductive confirmation.Katya Tentori, Vincenzo Crupi & Selena Russo - 2013 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142 (1):235.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • A verisimilitudinarian analysis of the Linda paradox.Gustavo Cevolani, Vincenzo Crupi & Roberto Festa - 2012 - VII Conference of the Spanish Society for Logic, Methodology and Philosphy of Science.
    The Linda paradox is a key topic in current debates on the rationality of human reasoning and its limitations. We present a novel analysis of this paradox, based on the notion of verisimilitude as studied in the philosophy of science. The comparison with an alternative analysis based on probabilistic confirmation suggests how to overcome some problems of our account by introducing an adequately defined notion of verisimilitudinarian confirmation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How can we be moral when we are so irrational?Nils-Eric Sahlin & Johan Brännmark - unknown
    Normative ethics usually presupposes background accounts of human agency, and although different ethical theorists might have different pictures of human agency in mind, there is still something like a standard account that most of mainstream normative ethics can be understood to rest on. Ethical theorists tend to have Rational Man, or at least some close relative to him, in mind when constructing normative theories. It will be argued here that empirical findings raise doubts about the accuracy of this kind of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Comparative Probability, Comparative Confirmation, and the “Conjunction Fallacy”.Branden Fitelson - unknown
    In the first edition of LFP, Carnap [2] undertakes a precise probabilistic explication of the concept of confirmation. This is where modern confirmation theory was born (in sin). Carnap was interested mainly in quantitative confirmation (which he took to be fundamental). But, he also gave (derivative) qualitative and comparative explications: • Qualitative. E inductively supports H. • Comparative. E supports H more strongly than E supports H . • Quantitative. E inductively supports H to degree r . Carnap begins by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Formal and Empirical Methods in Philosophy of Science.Vincenzo Crupi & Stephan Hartmann - 2009 - In Friedrich Stadler et al (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 87--98.
    This essay addresses the methodology of philosophy of science and illustrates how formal and empirical methods can be fruitfully combined. Special emphasis is given to the application of experimental methods to confirmation theory and to recent work on the conjunction fallacy, a key topic in the rationality debate arising from research in cognitive psychology. Several other issue can be studied in this way. In the concluding section, a brief outline is provided of three further examples.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The conjunction fallacy and the many meanings of and.Ralph Hertwig, Björn Benz & Stefan Krauss - 2008 - Cognition 108 (3):740-753.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations