{"title":"澄清相对的合理性:一种反驳","authors":"R. Allen, Michael S. Pardo","doi":"10.1177/1365712718816760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This rejoinder replies to the twenty published commentaries on our article, “Relative Plausibility and Its Critics.” Our response has four objectives: 1) presenting further details regarding relative plausibility and the scope of our project in order to address some of our critics’ claims of ambiguity; 2) examining some important methodological considerations; 3) clarifying the significance of the conjunction problem and its role in the “probability debates”; and 4) noting avenues for future research.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"23 1","pages":"205 - 217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712718816760","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clarifying relative plausibility: A rejoinder\",\"authors\":\"R. Allen, Michael S. Pardo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1365712718816760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This rejoinder replies to the twenty published commentaries on our article, “Relative Plausibility and Its Critics.” Our response has four objectives: 1) presenting further details regarding relative plausibility and the scope of our project in order to address some of our critics’ claims of ambiguity; 2) examining some important methodological considerations; 3) clarifying the significance of the conjunction problem and its role in the “probability debates”; and 4) noting avenues for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"205 - 217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712718816760\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816760\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816760","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
This rejoinder replies to the twenty published commentaries on our article, “Relative Plausibility and Its Critics.” Our response has four objectives: 1) presenting further details regarding relative plausibility and the scope of our project in order to address some of our critics’ claims of ambiguity; 2) examining some important methodological considerations; 3) clarifying the significance of the conjunction problem and its role in the “probability debates”; and 4) noting avenues for future research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
