What Evidence Do You Have?

by: Ram Neta

Br J Philos Sci, Vol. 59, No. 1. (1 March 2008), pp. 89-119.

View FullText article

DOI, HighWire

Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

Find related articles from these CiteULike users

wandall

Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

evidence

Abstract

Your evidence constrains your rational degrees of confidence both locally and globally. On the one hand, particular bits of evidence can boost or diminish your rational degree of confidence in various hypotheses, relative to your background information. On the other hand, epistemic rationality requires that, for any hypothesis h, your confidence in h is proportional to the support that h receives from your total evidence. Why is it that your evidence has these two epistemic powers? I argue that various proposed accounts of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set cannot answer this question. I then propose an alternative account of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set. 1 Introduction 2 The elements of one's evidence set are propositions 3 Which kinds of propositions are in one's evidence set? 3.1 Doxastic accounts of evidence 3.2 Non-doxastic accounts of evidence 4 Elaborating and defending the LIE 10.1093/bjps/axn003

@article{citeulike:2601018, abstract = {Your evidence constrains your rational degrees of confidence both locally and globally. On the one hand, particular bits of evidence can boost or diminish your rational degree of confidence in various hypotheses, relative to your background information. On the other hand, epistemic rationality requires that, for any hypothesis h, your confidence in h is proportional to the support that h receives from your total evidence. Why is it that your evidence has these two epistemic powers? I argue that various proposed accounts of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set cannot answer this question. I then propose an alternative account of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set. 1 Introduction 2 The elements of one's evidence set are propositions 3 Which kinds of propositions are in one's evidence set? 3.1 Doxastic accounts of evidence 3.2 Non-doxastic accounts of evidence 4 Elaborating and defending the LIE 10.1093/bjps/axn003}, author = {Neta, Ram }, citeulike-article-id = {2601018}, doi = {10.1093/bjps/axn003}, journal = {Br J Philos Sci}, keywords = {evidence}, month = {March}, number = {1}, pages = {89--119}, posted-at = {2008-03-27 07:24:13}, priority = {2}, title = {What Evidence Do You Have?}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axn003}, volume = {59}, year = {2008} }

RIS record

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:2601018 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2601018 TI - What Evidence Do You Have? JF - Br J Philos Sci VL - 59 IS - 1 SP - 89 EP - 119 N2 - Your evidence constrains your rational degrees of confidence both locally and globally. On the one hand, particular bits of evidence can boost or diminish your rational degree of confidence in various hypotheses, relative to your background information. On the other hand, epistemic rationality requires that, for any hypothesis h, your confidence in h is proportional to the support that h receives from your total evidence. Why is it that your evidence has these two epistemic powers? I argue that various proposed accounts of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set cannot answer this question. I then propose an alternative account of what it is for something to be an element of your evidence set. 1 Introduction 2 The elements of one's evidence set are propositions 3 Which kinds of propositions are in one's evidence set? 3.1 Doxastic accounts of evidence 3.2 Non-doxastic accounts of evidence 4 Elaborating and defending the LIE 10.1093/bjps/axn003 KW - evidence AU - Neta, Ram PY - 2008/03/01/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axn003 ER -

RIS BibTeX