{"title":"Credences and Trustworthiness: a Calibrationist Account","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s13164-024-00724-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>All of us make judgments of probability, and we rely on them for our decision-making. This paper argues that such judgments are trustworthy only to the extent that one has good reasons to think that they are produced by maximally inclusive, well calibrated cognitive processes. A cognitive process is maximally inclusive when it takes into account all the evidence which one regards as relevant, and it is well calibrated when anything it would assign, say, an 80% probability to would be true 80% of the time. We further have good reasons to think these judgments are trustworthy when, inter alia, they are produced by processes that have good track records of calibration. Call this inclusive calibrationism—or just “calibrationism” for short. In arguing for calibrationism, I also appeal to various empirical results, including research into probabilistic reasoning funded by the US intelligence community. Together, these ideas and results have implications for some important philosophical problems: the problem of the priors, the problem of unique events and the use of intuition in probabilistic reasoning. These theses and results also imply that our judgments are often less trustworthy than we might hope for potentially many domains, including law, medicine and others—barring good track records, that is.</p>","PeriodicalId":47055,"journal":{"name":"Review of Philosophy and Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Philosophy and Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-024-00724-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
All of us make judgments of probability, and we rely on them for our decision-making. This paper argues that such judgments are trustworthy only to the extent that one has good reasons to think that they are produced by maximally inclusive, well calibrated cognitive processes. A cognitive process is maximally inclusive when it takes into account all the evidence which one regards as relevant, and it is well calibrated when anything it would assign, say, an 80% probability to would be true 80% of the time. We further have good reasons to think these judgments are trustworthy when, inter alia, they are produced by processes that have good track records of calibration. Call this inclusive calibrationism—or just “calibrationism” for short. In arguing for calibrationism, I also appeal to various empirical results, including research into probabilistic reasoning funded by the US intelligence community. Together, these ideas and results have implications for some important philosophical problems: the problem of the priors, the problem of unique events and the use of intuition in probabilistic reasoning. These theses and results also imply that our judgments are often less trustworthy than we might hope for potentially many domains, including law, medicine and others—barring good track records, that is.
期刊介绍：
The Review of Philosophy and Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive science.
The aim of the journal is to provide a forum for discussion on topics of mutual interest to philosophers and psychologists and to foster interdisciplinary research at the crossroads of philosophy and the sciences of the mind, including the neural, behavioural and social sciences.
The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in empirical research as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical relevance. It includes thematic issues featuring invited contributions from leading authors together with articles answering a call for papers.
The Review of Philosophy and Psychology is published quarterly and is hosted at the Jean Nicod Institute, a research centre of the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. It was formerly published as the "European Review of Philosophy" by CSLI Publications, Stanford.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
