Switch to: References

Citations of:

Group Rationality in Scientific Research

New York: Cambridge University Press (2007)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (1 other version)Group Level Interpretations of Probability: New Directions.Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2013 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (2):188-203.
    In this article, I present some new group level interpretations of probability, and champion one in particular: a consensus-based variant where group degrees of belief are construed as agreed upon betting quotients rather than shared personal degrees of belief. One notable feature of the account is that it allows us to treat consensus between experts on some matter as being on the union of their relevant background information. In the course of the discussion, I also introduce a novel distinction between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Human Rationality Challenges Universal Logic.Brian R. Gaines - 2010 - Logica Universalis 4 (2):163-205.
    Tarski’s conceptual analysis of the notion of logical consequence is one of the pinnacles of the process of defining the metamathematical foundations of mathematics in the tradition of his predecessors Euclid, Frege, Russell and Hilbert, and his contemporaries Carnap, Gödel, Gentzen and Turing. However, he also notes that in defining the concept of consequence “efforts were made to adhere to the common usage of the language of every day life.” This paper addresses the issue of what relationship Tarski’s analysis, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Is science like a crossword puzzle? Foundherentist conceptions of scientific warrant.Rik Peels - 2016 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46 (1):82-101.
    This paper argues that the crossword puzzle analogy is great for scientific rationality, but not scientific warrant. It provides a critical analysis of foundherentist conceptions of scientific warrant, especially that of Susan Haack, and closely related positions, such as non-doxastic coherentism. Foundherentism takes the middle ground between foundationalism and coherentism. The main idea is that warrant, including that of scientific theories, is like warrant of crossword entries: the degree to which a theory is warranted depends on one’s observations, the extent (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Social structure and the effects of conformity.Kevin James Spears Zollman - 2010 - Synthese 172 (3):317-340.
    Conformity is an often criticized feature of human belief formation. Although generally regarded as a negative influence on reliability, it has not been widely studied. This paper attempts to determine the epistemic effects of conformity by analyzing a mathematical model of this behavior. In addition to investigating the effect of conformity on the reliability of individuals and groups, this paper attempts to determine the optimal structure for conformity. That is, supposing that conformity is inevitable, what is the best way for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Scarce justice: The accuracy, scope, and depth of justice.Aviezer Tucker - 2012 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (1):76-96.
    The scarcity of resources required to produce justice is manifested in the relation between the accuracy, depth, and scope of materially possible forms of justice. Ceteris paribus , increases in the accuracy of justice must come at the expense of its depth and scope, and vice versa, though they are not linearly proportioned. The accuracy of justice is the degree of agreement between the possible results of attempts to implement a theory or principles of justice and the desired result according (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The structure of scientific controversies: Thomas Kuhn’s social epistemology.Paulo Pirozelli - 2021 - Filosofia Unisinos 22 (3):1-17.
    Changes of theories are major events in science. Two main types of questions may be asked about them: i) how do scientists choose new theories?, and ii) how is consensus formed? Generally, philosophers do not distinguish these two questions. Kuhn, on the contrary, offers very different answers to each of these questions. Theory-choice, on the one hand, is explained through the application of epistemic criteria, such as accuracy and consistency; nonetheless, because these values do not prescribe a single choice, consensus (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark