Knowledge-First Inferential Evidence: A Response to Dunn

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY MONIST Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1093/monist/onad024
Timothy Williamson
{"title":"Knowledge-First Inferential Evidence: A Response to Dunn","authors":"Timothy Williamson","doi":"10.1093/monist/onad024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper is a response to “Inferential Evidence” by Jeffrey Dunn, in which he argues that my account of evidence is internally inconsistent, and that any form of Bayesian epistemology excludes evidence gained by inductive inference (which my account allows). In response, I show how the alleged inconsistency dissolves once the process of gaining evidence by inductive inference is fully articulated into the relevant stages, with due attention to the potential role of recognitional capacities.","PeriodicalId":47322,"journal":{"name":"MONIST","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MONIST","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onad024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper is a response to “Inferential Evidence” by Jeffrey Dunn, in which he argues that my account of evidence is internally inconsistent, and that any form of Bayesian epistemology excludes evidence gained by inductive inference (which my account allows). In response, I show how the alleged inconsistency dissolves once the process of gaining evidence by inductive inference is fully articulated into the relevant stages, with due attention to the potential role of recognitional capacities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
知识优先的推理证据:对邓恩的回应
本文是对杰弗里·邓恩(Jeffrey Dunn)的《推理证据》(Inferential Evidence)的回应,在邓恩的书中,他认为我对证据的解释在内部是不一致的,任何形式的贝叶斯认识论都排除了通过归纳推理获得的证据(我的解释允许)。作为回应,我展示了一旦通过归纳推理获得证据的过程被充分阐明到相关阶段,并适当关注识别能力的潜在作用,所谓的不一致是如何消失的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
MONIST
MONIST PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Disingenuous Infallibilism Knowledge-First Inferential Evidence: A Response to Dunn How Infallibilists Can Have It All How Not to Be a Fallibilist Really Knowing: A Collocational Argument for an Infallibilist Sense of ‘Know’
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1