知识优先的推理证据:对邓恩的回应

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
MONIST Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1093/monist/onad024
Timothy Williamson
{"title":"知识优先的推理证据:对邓恩的回应","authors":"Timothy Williamson","doi":"10.1093/monist/onad024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper is a response to “Inferential Evidence” by Jeffrey Dunn, in which he argues that my account of evidence is internally inconsistent, and that any form of Bayesian epistemology excludes evidence gained by inductive inference (which my account allows). In response, I show how the alleged inconsistency dissolves once the process of gaining evidence by inductive inference is fully articulated into the relevant stages, with due attention to the potential role of recognitional capacities.","PeriodicalId":47322,"journal":{"name":"MONIST","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge-First Inferential Evidence: A Response to Dunn\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Williamson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/monist/onad024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper is a response to “Inferential Evidence” by Jeffrey Dunn, in which he argues that my account of evidence is internally inconsistent, and that any form of Bayesian epistemology excludes evidence gained by inductive inference (which my account allows). In response, I show how the alleged inconsistency dissolves once the process of gaining evidence by inductive inference is fully articulated into the relevant stages, with due attention to the potential role of recognitional capacities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MONIST\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MONIST\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onad024\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MONIST","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onad024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文是对杰弗里·邓恩(Jeffrey Dunn)的《推理证据》(Inferential Evidence)的回应,在邓恩的书中,他认为我对证据的解释在内部是不一致的,任何形式的贝叶斯认识论都排除了通过归纳推理获得的证据(我的解释允许)。作为回应,我展示了一旦通过归纳推理获得证据的过程被充分阐明到相关阶段,并适当关注识别能力的潜在作用,所谓的不一致是如何消失的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Knowledge-First Inferential Evidence: A Response to Dunn
Abstract This paper is a response to “Inferential Evidence” by Jeffrey Dunn, in which he argues that my account of evidence is internally inconsistent, and that any form of Bayesian epistemology excludes evidence gained by inductive inference (which my account allows). In response, I show how the alleged inconsistency dissolves once the process of gaining evidence by inductive inference is fully articulated into the relevant stages, with due attention to the potential role of recognitional capacities.
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
MONIST
MONIST PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
34
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信