This chapter examines a problematic consequence of the popular probability-raising conception of evidential support, namely that any proposition which is evidence for some hypothesis is evidence for itself. It examines whether the defender of the probability-raising account can avoid this consequence by modifying either of the two conditions they place on a proposition p being evidence for a subject for a hypothesis h: that 1) p is part of the subject’s evidence; and, 2) p raises the probability of h. The chapter defends an invariantist modification of the second condition which appeals to the notion of warrant transmission
Abstract: Evidence claims depend on fallible assumptions. Three strategies for making true evidence ...
Reasoning from inconclusive evidence, or ‘induction’, is central to science and any applications we ...
One leading account of justification comes from the evidentialist tradition. According to evidential...
This chapter examines a problematic consequence of the popular probability-raising conception of evi...
Evidentialist views in epistemology, like that of Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, define epistemic j...
According to evidentialism, a subject is justified in believing a proposition at a time, just in cas...
Peter Achinstein has argued at length and on many occasions that the view according to which evident...
Bayesians understand the notion of evidential support in terms of probability raising. Little is kno...
The paper starts by describing and clarifying what Williamson calls the consequence fallacy. I show ...
Evidentialism has shown itself to be an important research program in contemporary epistemology, wit...
In this paper I argue that Evidentialism is unsatisfactory as a general account of epistemic justifi...
Evidential support is often equated with confirmation, where evidence supports hypothesis H if and o...
Evidence Theory is a branch of the mathematics of uncertain reasoning that entails profound epistemo...
Bayesian Epistemology is a general framework for thinking about agents who have beliefs that come in...
We draw a distinction between belief and evidence and develop two accounts to characterize these con...
Abstract: Evidence claims depend on fallible assumptions. Three strategies for making true evidence ...
Reasoning from inconclusive evidence, or ‘induction’, is central to science and any applications we ...
One leading account of justification comes from the evidentialist tradition. According to evidential...
This chapter examines a problematic consequence of the popular probability-raising conception of evi...
Evidentialist views in epistemology, like that of Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, define epistemic j...
According to evidentialism, a subject is justified in believing a proposition at a time, just in cas...
Peter Achinstein has argued at length and on many occasions that the view according to which evident...
Bayesians understand the notion of evidential support in terms of probability raising. Little is kno...
The paper starts by describing and clarifying what Williamson calls the consequence fallacy. I show ...
Evidentialism has shown itself to be an important research program in contemporary epistemology, wit...
In this paper I argue that Evidentialism is unsatisfactory as a general account of epistemic justifi...
Evidential support is often equated with confirmation, where evidence supports hypothesis H if and o...
Evidence Theory is a branch of the mathematics of uncertain reasoning that entails profound epistemo...
Bayesian Epistemology is a general framework for thinking about agents who have beliefs that come in...
We draw a distinction between belief and evidence and develop two accounts to characterize these con...
Abstract: Evidence claims depend on fallible assumptions. Three strategies for making true evidence ...
Reasoning from inconclusive evidence, or ‘induction’, is central to science and any applications we ...
One leading account of justification comes from the evidentialist tradition. According to evidential...