表现主义、规范不确定性和概率论的论证

J. Staffel
{"title":"表现主义、规范不确定性和概率论的论证","authors":"J. Staffel","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198833314.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I argue that in order to account for normative uncertainty, an expressivist theory of normative language and thought must accomplish two things: first, it needs to find room in its framework for a gradable conative attitude, degrees of which can be interpreted as representing normative uncertainty. Secondly, it needs to defend appropriate rationality constraints pertaining to those graded attitudes. The first task—finding an appropriate graded attitude that can represent uncertainty—is not particularly problematic. I tackle the second task by exploring whether we can devise expressivist versions of the standard arguments used to support rationality constraints on degrees of uncertainty, Dutch book arguments, and accuracy-dominance arguments. I show that we can do so, but that the resulting arguments don’t support the same rationality constraints as the original versions of the arguments.","PeriodicalId":334846,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 6","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expressivism, Normative Uncertainty, and Arguments for Probabilism\",\"authors\":\"J. Staffel\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198833314.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I argue that in order to account for normative uncertainty, an expressivist theory of normative language and thought must accomplish two things: first, it needs to find room in its framework for a gradable conative attitude, degrees of which can be interpreted as representing normative uncertainty. Secondly, it needs to defend appropriate rationality constraints pertaining to those graded attitudes. The first task—finding an appropriate graded attitude that can represent uncertainty—is not particularly problematic. I tackle the second task by exploring whether we can devise expressivist versions of the standard arguments used to support rationality constraints on degrees of uncertainty, Dutch book arguments, and accuracy-dominance arguments. I show that we can do so, but that the resulting arguments don’t support the same rationality constraints as the original versions of the arguments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334846,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 6\",\"volume\":\"69 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 6\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198833314.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Studies in Epistemology Volume 6","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198833314.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我认为,为了解释规范性的不确定性,规范性语言和思想的表现主义理论必须完成两件事:首先,它需要在其框架中为可分级的认知态度找到空间,这种态度的程度可以被解释为代表规范性的不确定性。其次,它需要捍卫与这些分级态度有关的适当理性约束。第一个任务——找到一种合适的可以代表不确定性的分级态度——并不是特别有问题。我通过探索我们是否可以设计出标准论证的表现主义版本来解决第二个任务,这些标准论证用于支持不确定性程度的合理性约束、荷兰书论证和准确性优势论证。我展示了我们可以这样做,但是结果的论证不支持与原始论证版本相同的理性约束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expressivism, Normative Uncertainty, and Arguments for Probabilism
I argue that in order to account for normative uncertainty, an expressivist theory of normative language and thought must accomplish two things: first, it needs to find room in its framework for a gradable conative attitude, degrees of which can be interpreted as representing normative uncertainty. Secondly, it needs to defend appropriate rationality constraints pertaining to those graded attitudes. The first task—finding an appropriate graded attitude that can represent uncertainty—is not particularly problematic. I tackle the second task by exploring whether we can devise expressivist versions of the standard arguments used to support rationality constraints on degrees of uncertainty, Dutch book arguments, and accuracy-dominance arguments. I show that we can do so, but that the resulting arguments don’t support the same rationality constraints as the original versions of the arguments.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信