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
    The question of how we know that some observation makes p... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Understanding probability in terms of frequency makes it impossible to have direct acquaintance with probabilistic connections between propositions.

    The question of how we know that some observation makes probable our judgment of probability then arises again.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Frequency-based probability concerns complex contingent facts about the ratio of...Such facts can only be known through extensive observation, data gathering, or e...Understanding probability in terms of frequency makes it impossible to have dire...We do not have direct access to such complex contingent facts.

    Similar

    A physical interpretation of probability requires the event to be repe...76%One also needs justification for believing that F makes probable that ...73%Conceivability is evidence of possibility73%If Player III reasons in terms of conditional probabilities, then Play...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: knowledge-acquaindescrip
    View source passageHide passage
    Most classical foundationalists at least implicitly rejected the idea that the mere obtaining of a probability relation between one’s noninferential evidence that P and the proposition Q one infers from that evidence is sufficient to acquire inferential justification or inferential knowledge. Rather, they insisted, one must be aware of or have access to the probabilistic connection that obtains between one’s premises and one’s conclusion. Direct acquaintance with facts was proposed to end a pote

    Details

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

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective