Skepticism and Epistemic Closure: Two Bayesian Accounts

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
No Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper considers two novel Bayesian responses to a well-known skeptical paradox. The paradox consists of three intuitions: first, given appropriate sense experience, we have justification for accepting the relevant proposition about the external world; second, we have justification for expanding the body of accepted propositions through known entailment; third, we do not have justification for accepting that we are not disembodied souls in an immaterial world deceived by an evil demon. The first response we consider rejects the third intuition and proposes an explanation of why we have a faulty intuition. The second response, which we favor, accommodates all three intuitions; it reconciles the first and the third intuition by the dual component model of justification, and defends the second intuition by distinguishing two principles of epistemic closure.

Skepticism and Epistemic Closure: Two Bayesian Accounts

in International Journal for the Study of Skepticism

Sections

References

AlstonW. (1996). “Belief, Acceptance, and Religious Faith.” In Howard-SnyderD. (ed.) Faith Freedom and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today327. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

AtkinsonD. (2012). “Confirmation and Justification. A Commentary on Shogenji’s MeasureSynthese 184: 4961.

Bar-HillelY. and CarnapR. (1953). “Semantic InformationBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4: 147157.

BruecknerA. (1994). “The Structure of the Skeptical ArgumentPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 827835.

CohenL. J. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

CohenS. (2002). “Basic Knowledge and the Problem of Easy KnowledgePhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 309329.

CrupiV.FitelsonB. & TentoriK. (2008). “Probability, Confirmation, and the Conjunction FallacyThinking and Reasoning 14: 182199.

DretskeF. (1971). “Conclusive ReasonsAustralasian Journal of Philosophy 49: 122.

DretskeF. (2005). “Is Knowledge Closed Under Known Entailment?” In SteupM. and SosaE. (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology1326 . Oxford: Blackwell.

FantlJ. & McGrathM. (2002). “Evidence, Pragmatics, and JustificationPhilosophical Review 111: 6794.

FantlJ. & McGrathM. (2007). “On Pragmatic Encroachment in EpistemologyPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 75: 558589.

FantlJ. & McGrathM. (2009). Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

FantlJ. & McGrathM. (2012). “Pragmatic Encroachment: It’s Not Just About KnowledgeEpisteme 9: 2742.

FoleyR. (2009). “Belief, Degrees of Belief, and the Lockean Thesis.” In HuberF. and Schmidt-PetriC. (eds.) Degrees of Belief3747. Dordrecht: Springer.

FumertonR. (1995). Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Totowa, NJ : Rowman and Littlefield.

HuberF. (2008a). “Assessing Theories, Bayes StyleSynthese 161: 89118.

HuberF. (2008b). “Hempel’s Logic of ConfirmationPhilosophical Studies 139: 181189.

JenkinsC. (2007). “Entitlement and RationalitySynthese 157: 2545.

KungP. (2010). “On Having No Reason: Dogmatism and Bayesian ConfirmationSynthese 177: 117.

LeviI. (1967). Gambling with Truth. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

LeviI. (1980). The Enterprise of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.

LeviI. (2004). Mild Contraction: Evaluating Loss of Information Due to Loss of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MakinsonD.C. (1965). “The Paradox of the PrefaceAnalysis 25: 205207.

MorettiL. and PiazzaT. (2013). “Transmission of Justification and Warrant.” In ZaltaE. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/transmission-justification-warrant/.

NozickR. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge UK : Cambridge University Press.

OkashaS. (2004). “Wright on the Transmission of Support: A Bayesian AnalysisAnalysis 64: 139146.

PopperK. (1954). “Degree of ConfirmationThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5: 143149.

PopperK. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.

PritchardD. (2005a). “The Structure of Sceptical ArgumentsPhilosophical Quarterly 55: 3752.

PritchardD. (2005b). “Wittgenstein’s On Certainty and Contemporary Anti-Scepticism.” In Moyal-SharrockD. and BrennerW. H. (eds.) Readings of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty189224. London: Palgrave Macmillian.

PryorJ. (2013). “Problems for Credulism.” In TuckerC. (ed.) Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism89131. New York: Oxford University Press.

ShannonC. and WeaverW. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

ShogenjiT. (2012). “The Degree of Epistemic Justification and the Conjunction FallacySynthese 184: 2948.

SidesA. OshersonD.BoniniN. and VialeR. (2002). “On the Reality of the Conjunction FallacyMemory & Cognition 30: 191198.

TverskyA. and KahnemanD. (1983). “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability JudgmentPsychological Review 90: 293315.

Van CleveJ. (2003). “Is Knowledge Easy or Impossible? Externalism as the Only Answer to Skepticism.” In LuperS. (ed.) The Skeptics4559. Aldershot, UK : Ashgate.

Vogel J. (2000). “Reliabilism DefendedJournal of Philosophy 97: 602623.

Vogel J. (2004). “Skeptical ArgumentsPhilosophical Issues 14: 426455.

Vogel J. (2008). “Epistemic BootstrappingJournal of Philosophy 105: 518539.

WeathersonB. (2007). “The Bayesian and the DogmatistProceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107: 169185.

WhiteR. (2006). “Problems for DogmatismPhilosophical Studies 131: 525557.

WilliamsonT. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WrightC. (2002). “(Anti)-Sceptics Simple and Subtle: Moore and McDowellPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research 65: 330348.

WrightC. (2004). “Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free?)Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78: 167212.

WrightC. (2007). “The Perils of Dogmatism.” In S. Nucciatelli and Gary Seay (eds.) Themes from E. G. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics2548. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WrightC. (2014). “On Epistemic Entitlement (II): Welfare State Epistemology.” In ZardiniE. and DoddD. (eds.) Scepticism and Perceptual Justification231242. New York: Oxford University Press.

YalçinÜ. (1992). “Sceptical Arguments from UnderdeterminationPhilosophical Studies 68: 134.

4

 See Cohen (1992) and Alston (1996) for the distinction of belief and acceptance in epistemology. We will say a little more about the notion of acceptance in Section 3.

21

 See Shogenji (2012) for a detailed analysis of the conjunction fallacy based on the dual component model of justification.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 25 25 5
Full Text Views 106 106 44
PDF Downloads 8 8 3
EPUB Downloads 2 2 2