Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:16:14.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REGULARITY REFORMULATED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2012

Weng Hong Tang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focuses on the view that rationality requires that our credences be regular. I go through different formulations of the requirement, and show that they face several problems. I then formulate a version of the requirement that solves most of, if not all, these problems. I conclude by showing that an argument thought to support the requirement as traditionally formulated actually does not; if anything, the argument, slightly modified, supports my version of the requirement.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 329 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1971. ‘A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part I.’ In Carnap, R. and Jeffrey, R. C.(eds), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. 2010. The Character of Consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, G. 1979. ‘Reference and Contingency.’ The Monist, 62(2): 161–89.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. 2003. ‘What Conditional Probability Could Not Be.’ Synthese, 137: 273–323.Google Scholar
Hájek, A.. Forthcoming. ‘Is Strict Coherence Coherent?’ Dialetica.Google Scholar
Hájek, A. Manuscript. ‘Staying Regular.’Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. 1955. ‘Fair Bets and Inductive Probabilities. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20(3): 263–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. ‘A Subjectivist's Guide to Objective Chance.’ In Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. 2. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.. 1981. ‘Causal Decision Theory.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
Lewis, D.. 1999. ‘Why Conditionalize?’ In Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maher, P. 1990. ‘Acceptance without Belief.’ PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1: 381–92.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. 1955. ‘Coherence and the Axioms of Cconfirmation.’ Journal of Symbolic Logic, 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1980. Causal Necessity: A Pragmatic Investigation of the Necessity of Laws. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1970. ‘Probability and Conditionals.’ Philosophy of Science, 37(1): 64–80.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1984. ‘Belief and the Will.’ Journal of Philosophy, 81(5): 235–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B.. 1995. ‘Fine-Grained Opinion, Probability, and the Logic of Full Belief.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic,24: 349–77.Google Scholar
Weintraub, R. 1993. ‘Fallibilism and Rational Belief.’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44(2) 251–61.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2007. ‘How Probable is an Infinite Sequence of Heads?’ Analysis, 67(3): 173–80.Google Scholar