认识论规范化

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Jeremy Goodman, Bernhard Salow
{"title":"认识论规范化","authors":"Jeremy Goodman, Bernhard Salow","doi":"10.1215/00318108-10123787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We offer a general framework for theorizing about the structure of knowledge and belief in terms of the comparative normality of situations compatible with one’s evidence. The guiding idea is that, if a possibility is sufficiently less normal than one’s actual situation, then one can know that that possibility does not obtain. This explains how people can have inductive knowledge that goes beyond what is strictly entailed by their evidence. We motivate the framework by showing how it illuminates knowledge about the future, knowledge of lawful regularities, knowledge about parameters measured using imperfect instruments, the connection between knowledge, belief, and probability, and the dynamics of knowledge and belief in response to new evidence.","PeriodicalId":48129,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemology Normalized\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Goodman, Bernhard Salow\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/00318108-10123787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We offer a general framework for theorizing about the structure of knowledge and belief in terms of the comparative normality of situations compatible with one’s evidence. The guiding idea is that, if a possibility is sufficiently less normal than one’s actual situation, then one can know that that possibility does not obtain. This explains how people can have inductive knowledge that goes beyond what is strictly entailed by their evidence. We motivate the framework by showing how it illuminates knowledge about the future, knowledge of lawful regularities, knowledge about parameters measured using imperfect instruments, the connection between knowledge, belief, and probability, and the dynamics of knowledge and belief in response to new evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-10123787\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-10123787","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

我们提供了一个关于知识和信仰结构的一般框架,根据与证据相兼容的情况的相对正常性进行理论化。指导思想是,如果一种可能性比一个人的实际情况足够不正常,那么人们就可以知道这种可能性是不可能的。这就解释了人们如何拥有超越其证据严格要求的归纳知识。我们通过展示该框架如何阐明关于未来的知识、合法规律的知识、关于使用不完美工具测量的参数的知识、知识、信念和概率之间的联系,以及知识和信念对新证据的反应动力学,来激励该框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemology Normalized
We offer a general framework for theorizing about the structure of knowledge and belief in terms of the comparative normality of situations compatible with one’s evidence. The guiding idea is that, if a possibility is sufficiently less normal than one’s actual situation, then one can know that that possibility does not obtain. This explains how people can have inductive knowledge that goes beyond what is strictly entailed by their evidence. We motivate the framework by showing how it illuminates knowledge about the future, knowledge of lawful regularities, knowledge about parameters measured using imperfect instruments, the connection between knowledge, belief, and probability, and the dynamics of knowledge and belief in response to new evidence.
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
PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW
PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: In continuous publication since 1892, the Philosophical Review has a long-standing reputation for excellence and has published many papers now considered classics in the field, such as W. V. O. Quine"s “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Thomas Nagel"s “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” and the early work of John Rawls. The journal aims to publish original scholarly work in all areas of analytic philosophy, with an emphasis on material of general interest to academic philosophers, and is one of the few journals in the discipline to publish book reviews.
×
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