Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:03:39.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACCURACY AND UR-PRIOR CONDITIONALIZATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2018

NILANJAN DAS
NILANJAN DAS*
Affiliation:
New York University Shanghai
*
*HUMANITIES DIVISION (PHILOSOPHY) NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SHANGHAI 1555 CENTURY AVENUE PUDONG NEW AREA, SHANGHAI 200122 CHINA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, several epistemologists have defended an attractive principle of epistemic rationality, which we shall call Ur-Prior Conditionalization. In this essay, I ask whether we can justify this principle by appealing to the epistemic goal of accuracy. I argue that any such accuracy-based argument will be in tension with Evidence Externalism, i.e., the view that agent’s evidence may entail nontrivial propositions about the external world. This is because any such argument will crucially require the assumption that, independently of all empirical evidence, it is rational for an agent to be certain that her evidence will always include truths, and that she will always have perfect introspective access to her own evidence. This assumption is incompatible with Evidence Externalism. I go on to suggest that even if we don’t accept Evidence Externalism, the prospects for any accuracy-based justification for Ur-Prior Conditionalization are bleak.

Keywords

03B42evidence externalismaccuracyintrospection principles
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 62 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, J. (2002). Belief’s Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, J. E. (1989). Epistemics and the total evidence requirement. Philosophia, 19 (2–3), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, W. P. (1980). Level-confusions in epistemology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5(1), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, L. (2004). A naturalized approach to the a priori. Philosophical Issues, 14(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berker, S. (2008). Luminosity regained. Philosophers’ Imprint, 8, 1–22.Google Scholar
Bradley, D. (2011). Self-location is no problem for conditionalization. Synthese, 182(3), 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R. A. (2017). Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-normative-utility/.Google Scholar
Briggs, R. A. & Pettigrew, R. (2016). An accuracy dominance argument for conditionalization. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bronfman, A. (2014). Conditionalization and not knowing that one knows. Erkenntnis, 79(4), 871–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. M. (1976). Conditionalization and expected utility. Philosophy of Science, 43(3), 415–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, A. (2013). Perception and evidence. Philosophical Studies, 170(2), 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conee, E. & Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conee, E. & Feldman, R. (2008). Evidence. In Smith, Q., editor. Epistemology: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, N. & Salow, B. (2018). Transparency and the KK principle. Noûs, 52(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (2004). Deception and division. In Davidson. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. (2004). Externalism and modest contextualism. Erkenntnis, 61(2–3), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easwaran, K. (2013). Expected accuracy supports conditionalization—and conglomerability and reflection. Philosophy of Science, 80(1), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easwaran, K. (2014). Regularity and hyperreal credences. Philosophical Review, 123(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elga, A. (2000). Self-locating belief and the sleeping beauty problem. Analysis, 60(266), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. & Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies, 48(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2009). Williamson on knowledge and evidence. In Greenough, P., Pritchard, D., and Williamson, T., editors. Williamson on Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, H. & Wallace, D. (2006). Justifying conditionalization: Conditionalization maximizes expected epistemic utility. Mind, 115(459), 607–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, D. (2014). Could KK be OK? Journal of Philosophy, 111(4),169–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, D. & Hedden, B. (2016). Uniqueness and metaepistemology. Journal of Philosophy, 113(8), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. (2003). What conditional probability could not be. Synthese, 137(3), 273–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, J. (2004). Sleeping beauty reconsidered: Conditioning and reflection in asynchronous systems. In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J., editors. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–142.Google Scholar
Hedden, B. (2015). Reasons Without Persons: Rationality, Identity, and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, S. (2014). Immoderately rational. Philosophical Studies, 167(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. (2009). Accuracy and coherence: Prospects for an alethic epistemology of partial belief. In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C., editors. Degrees of Belief. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 263–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. M. (1998). A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism. Philosophy of Science, 65(4), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. (2004). Williamson on evidence and knowledge. Philosophical Books, 45(4), 296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2008). Evidence. In Zalta, E. N., editor. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2016 Edition. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/evidence.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3(5), 933–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konek, J. (forthcoming). Epistemic conservativity and imprecise credence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, to appear.Google Scholar
Lasonen-Aarnio, M. (2013). The dogmatism puzzle. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Leite, A. (2013). But that’s not evidence; it’s not even true. Philosophical Quarterly, 63(250), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1971). Immodest inductive methods. Philosophy of Science, 38(1), 54–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes de dicto and de se. Philosophical Review, 88(4), 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, C. (2012). Justification and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo-Wilson, C. & Wheeler, G. (2016). Scoring imprecise credences: A mildly immodest proposal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. (1982). Criteria, defeasibility, and knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 68, 455–479.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (1995). Knowledge and the internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55(4), 877–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, J. H. (2011). Perception as a Capacity for Knowledge. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1994). Learning the impossible. In Eells, E. and Skyrms, B., editors. Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–199.Google Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. (2008). Sleeping beauty and the dynamics of de se beliefs. Philosophical Studies, 138(2), 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meacham, C. J. G. (2016). Ur-priors, conditionalization, and ur-prior conditionalization. Ergo, 3, 444–492.Google Scholar
Moss, S. (2012). Updating as communication. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neta, R. & Pritchard, D. (2007). Mcdowell and the new evil genius. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(2), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G. (1997). Conditionalization, cogency, and cognitive value. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48(4), 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, R. (2016). Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34(4), 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969). Propositional objects. In Quine. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 139–160.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, M. (2009). Anti-luminosity: Four unsuccessful strategies. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87(4), 659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinard, S. (2015). No exception for belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91(2), 121–143.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1967). The Foundations of Scientific Inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, K. (2014). Doxastic planning and epistemic internalism. Synthese, 191(12), 2571–2591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2013). Permission to believe: Why permissivism is true and what it tells us about irrelevant influences on belief. Noûs, 47(1), 193–218.Google Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (2017). Conditionalization does not maximize expected accuracy. Mind, 126(504), 1155–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenfield, M. (forthcoming). Permissivism and the value of rationality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, to appear.Google Scholar
Schultheis, G. (forthcoming). Living on the edge: Against epistemic permissivism. Mind, to appear.Google Scholar
Schwarz, W. (2012). Changing minds in a changing world. Philosophical Studies, 159(2), 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silins, N. (2005). Deception and evidence. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1983). Three ways to give a probability assignment a memory. In Earman, J. editor. Testing Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 157–161.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. (2012). Mentalism and epistemic transparency. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90(4), 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1975). Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (2009). Absence of evidence and evidence of absence: Evidential transitivity in connection with fossils, fishing, fine-tuning, and firing squads. Philosophical Studies, 143(1), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2006). On logics of knowledge and belief. Philosophical Studies, 128(1), 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2008). Our Knowledge of the Internal World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2009). On Hawthorne and Magidor on assertion, context, and epistemic accessibility. Mind, 118(470), 399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2015). Luminosity and the KK thesis. In Goldberg, S. C., editor. Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Skepticism, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–196.Google Scholar
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(2), 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbott, W. J. (1991). Two principles of Bayesian epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 62(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teller, P. (1973). Conditionalization and observation. Synthese, 26(2), 218–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. (2014). Quitting Certainties: A Bayesian Framework Modeling Degrees of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Titelbaum, M. G. & Kopec, M. (forthcoming). When rational reasoners reason differently. In Balcerak-Jackson, M. and Balcerak-Jackson, B., editors. Reasoning: Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1989). Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1999). Conditionalization, a new argument for. Topoi, 18(2), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, J. (2010). Luminosity and indiscriminability. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 547–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherson, B. (2004). Luminous margins. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(3), 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2005). Epistemic permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. (2006). Problems for Dogmatism. Philosophical Studies, 131(3), 525–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological Realism and the Basis of Scepticism. B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, P. M. (1980). Bayesian conditionalisation and the principle of minimum information. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (2004). Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free). Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 78(1), 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar