Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T16:05:22.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHANCE, CREDENCE AND CIRCLES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2017

Fabrizio Cariani
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I target Pettigrew's application of the accuracy framework to derive chance-credence principles. My principal contention is that Pettigrew's preferred version of the argument might in one sense be circular and, moreover, that Pettigrew's premises have content that goes beyond that of standard chance-credence principles.

Type
Symposium: Pettigrew's Accuracy and the Laws of Credence
Information
Episteme , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 49 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Buchak, L. 2014. Risk and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caie, M. 2015. ‘Credence in the Image of Chance.’ Philosophy of Science, 82: 626–48.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K. 2014. ‘Decision Theory without Representation Theorems.’ Philosophers Imprint, 14: 1–30.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 1983. ‘Old Evidence and Logical Omniscience in Bayesian Confirmation Theory.’ In Earman, J. (ed.), Testing Scientific Theories, pp. 99–131. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 2002. Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. ms. ‘A Puzzle about Partial Belief.’ Manuscript, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. and Pettigrew, R. 2010. ‘An Objective Justification of Bayesianism I: Measuring Inaccuracy.’ Philosophy of Science, 77: 201–35.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. 1998. ‘A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.’ Philosophy of Science, 65: 575–603.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. 2009. ‘Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 263–97. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance.’ In Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume II, pp. 83–112. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Meacham, C. 2010. ‘Two Mistakes Regarding the Principal Principle.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61: 407–31.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. 2012. ‘Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle.’ Philosophical Review, 121: 241–75.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, R. 2013. ‘A New Epistemic Utility Argument for the Principal Principle.’ Episteme, 10: 19–35.Google Scholar
Rips, L. 2002. ‘Circular Reasoning.’ Cognitive Science, 26: 767–95.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 1999. ‘Begging the Question.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77: 174–91.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1984. ‘Belief and the Will.’ Journal of Philosophy, 81: 235–56.Google Scholar