Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that There can be no merely formal answer to the question of what conditions on partial belief are necessary and sufficient for full belief.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
A credence threshold of 1 (or sufficiently near 1) constitutes a purely formal, degree-based criterion that is both necessary and sufficient for full belief.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Leitgeb's Stability Theory shows that full belief can be formally defined as credence stable across a set of probabilistically possible worlds, requiring no appeal to evidence type.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Formal Lockean thresholds, as defended by Foley, successfully reduce full belief to partial belief exceeding a context-sensitive but formally specifiable degree.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The evidential basis of a partial belief is already encoded in its probabilistic relations to other credences, making a separate evidence-type condition formally redundant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
What partial beliefs count as full beliefs cannot merely be a matter of the degree of partial belief.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
What partial beliefs count as full beliefs must also depend on the type of evidence the partial belief is based on.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.