Rigidity, symmetry and defeasibility: On Weisberg's puzzle for perceptual justification

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Issues Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1111/phis.12171
Juan Comesaña
{"title":"Rigidity, symmetry and defeasibility: On Weisberg's puzzle for perceptual justification","authors":"Juan Comesaña","doi":"10.1111/phis.12171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Joanthan Weisberg has presented a puzzle for Bayesian epistemologists (Weisberg, 2009, 2015). The puzzle highlights the inability to model a specific kind of defeasibility of evidence in a Bayesian framework. But the puzzle is of much wider interest: it arises not just for Bayesians, and not just for formal modelers, but for any theory which adopts three very plausible principles: the rigidity, symmetry, and defeasibility of evidence. In this paper I first presentWeisberg’s puzzle as originally developed, in the context of Bayesian epistemology. Then I show how the problem arises for normal epistemology aswell. I offer a solution for the normal puzzle and then carry over that solution to the formal side. I end up by suggesting that taking the puzzle seriously means facing up to the possibility that we cannot give an informative, general characterization of epistemic justification, and that we should instead rest content with a kind of particularism.","PeriodicalId":46360,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/phis.12171","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Issues","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12171","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Joanthan Weisberg has presented a puzzle for Bayesian epistemologists (Weisberg, 2009, 2015). The puzzle highlights the inability to model a specific kind of defeasibility of evidence in a Bayesian framework. But the puzzle is of much wider interest: it arises not just for Bayesians, and not just for formal modelers, but for any theory which adopts three very plausible principles: the rigidity, symmetry, and defeasibility of evidence. In this paper I first presentWeisberg’s puzzle as originally developed, in the context of Bayesian epistemology. Then I show how the problem arises for normal epistemology aswell. I offer a solution for the normal puzzle and then carry over that solution to the formal side. I end up by suggesting that taking the puzzle seriously means facing up to the possibility that we cannot give an informative, general characterization of epistemic justification, and that we should instead rest content with a kind of particularism.
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
刚性、对称性和可失败性——论魏斯伯格的感性论证之谜
Joanthan Weisberg为贝叶斯认识论者提出了一个难题(Weisberg,20092015)。这个谜题凸显了无法在贝叶斯框架中对特定类型的证据的可推翻性进行建模。但这个谜题有着更广泛的兴趣:它不仅适用于贝叶斯,也适用于形式建模者,适用于任何采用三个非常合理原则的理论:证据的刚性、对称性和可推翻性。在这篇论文中,我首先在贝叶斯认识论的背景下提出了Weisberg最初提出的谜题。然后我展示了这个问题是如何在正常认识论中产生的。我为普通谜题提供了一个解决方案,然后将该解决方案转移到正式方面。最后,我建议,认真对待这个谜题意味着要正视这样一种可能性,即我们不能对认识论的正当性进行信息性的、一般性的描述,而我们应该满足于一种特殊主义。
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
Philosophical Issues
Philosophical Issues PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Understanding friendship Epistemic normativity without epistemic teleology Reasons and belief The relational foundations of epistemic normativity The limits of experience: Dogmatism and moral epistemology
×
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:481959085
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