从认识等价的概率概念看均衡命题

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG Pub Date : 2023-03-15 DOI:10.3196/004433023836742696
M. Cordes
{"title":"从认识等价的概率概念看均衡命题","authors":"M. Cordes","doi":"10.3196/004433023836742696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his book Meinungsverschiedenheiten (engl.: Disagreement) Marc Andree Weber defends a probability based conception of epistemic peerhood. Starting from this conception he proves the equal weight thesis, which prescribes that one should allocate the same weight\n to the beliefs of epistemic peers as to one's own beliefs. – In the present article I provide a much shorter proof. For that purpose I first formalize Weber's definition and thesis and I close the argumentative gap between the two of them by making relatively few additions. Toward the\n end, I will document the differences between Weber's proof and my proof and indicate the relevance of a second proof. No judgmental assessment will be sought.","PeriodicalId":43672,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beweis der Gleichgewichtungsthese aus der Wahrscheinlichkeitskonzeption epistemischer Ebenbürtigkeit\",\"authors\":\"M. Cordes\",\"doi\":\"10.3196/004433023836742696\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his book Meinungsverschiedenheiten (engl.: Disagreement) Marc Andree Weber defends a probability based conception of epistemic peerhood. Starting from this conception he proves the equal weight thesis, which prescribes that one should allocate the same weight\\n to the beliefs of epistemic peers as to one's own beliefs. – In the present article I provide a much shorter proof. For that purpose I first formalize Weber's definition and thesis and I close the argumentative gap between the two of them by making relatively few additions. Toward the\\n end, I will document the differences between Weber's proof and my proof and indicate the relevance of a second proof. No judgmental assessment will be sought.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433023836742696\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433023836742696","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Marc Andree Weber在其著作《美浓》(英语:Meinungsverschiedenheiten)中为基于概率的认识贵族概念辩护。从这个概念开始,他证明了同等权重理论,该理论规定,一个人应该为认识论同行的信仰分配与自己信仰相同的权重在本文中,我提供了一个简短得多的证明。为此,我首先将韦伯的定义和论点形式化,并通过相对较少的补充来缩小两者之间的争论差距。最后,我将记录韦伯的证明和我的证明之间的差异,并指出第二个证明的相关性。不会寻求评判性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Beweis der Gleichgewichtungsthese aus der Wahrscheinlichkeitskonzeption epistemischer Ebenbürtigkeit
In his book Meinungsverschiedenheiten (engl.: Disagreement) Marc Andree Weber defends a probability based conception of epistemic peerhood. Starting from this conception he proves the equal weight thesis, which prescribes that one should allocate the same weight to the beliefs of epistemic peers as to one's own beliefs. – In the present article I provide a much shorter proof. For that purpose I first formalize Weber's definition and thesis and I close the argumentative gap between the two of them by making relatively few additions. Toward the end, I will document the differences between Weber's proof and my proof and indicate the relevance of a second proof. No judgmental assessment will be sought.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Mit diesem Doppelheft beginnt die Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung ihren 50. Jahrgang. Ihre Gründung im Frühjahr 1946 verdankt sie einem glücklichen Zusammenwirken. Die Initiative eines Münchner Philosophen aus Bulgarien verbindet sich mit dem Sachverstand namhafter Professoren, die damals noch aus ganz Deutschland, nicht nur dem Westen kommen. Ob er sie "nur" als Autoren oder zusätzlich für den Beirat der Redaktion gewinnt - von Anfang an versichert sich Georgi Schischkoff der Mitarbeit fast aller großen Namen der Zeit. Zunächst sind es etwa der Philosoph und Pädagoge Friedrich Bollnow, der Platon-Forscher Ernst Hoffmann, der Philosoph und Psychologe Philipp Lersch und die Philosophen Walter Bröcker und Wilhelm Weischedel.
期刊最新文献
Ebenen des philosophischen Textverstehens und ihre lesestrategische Bedeutung Die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Heftes Schopenhauer über Seinsgründe Logik und Geschlecht? Empirische Daten zu Logikeinführungen im Philosophiestudium an deutschen Universitäten1 Replik zu den Kommentaren
×
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