Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Bayesian epistemology is not about any real phenomena and... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Bayesian epistemology is not about any real phenomena and does not describe genuine norms governing real phenomena

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is typically no such psychological state as an agent's credence in a proposition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theories that are not about real phenomena, like alchemy and phlogiston theory, do not describe genuine governing norms
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Theories that are not about real phenomena, like alchemy and phlogiston theory, ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    There is typically no such psychological state as an agent's credence in a propo...

    Similar

    Virtue epistemology is a normative discipline86%Naturalized epistemology does not share this explicit normative aim85%Bayesian epistemology is not a guide to reasoning83%Bayesian epistemology may at best be an account of dispositions to act...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: formal-belief
    View source passageHide passage
    On the other hand there are partisans of full belief that are deeply skeptical about partial beliefs. See Harman (1986), Pollock (2006), Moon (2017), Horgan (2017) and the “bad cop” in Hájek and Lin (2017). Many of these object that partial beliefs have no psychological reality and would be too difficult to reason with if they did. Horgan (2017) goes so far as to say that typically “there is no such psychological state as the agent’s credence in \(p\)” and that Bayesian epistemology is “like alc
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit