Skip to main content
×
×
Home

WHAT IS JUSTIFIED CREDENCE?

  • Richard Pettigrew
Abstract

In this paper, we seek a reliabilist account of justified credence. Reliabilism about justified beliefs comes in two varieties: process reliabilism (Goldman 1979, 2008) and indicator reliabilism (Alston 1988, 2005). Existing accounts of reliabilism about justified credence come in the same two varieties: Jeff Dunn (2015) proposes a version of process reliabilism, while Weng Hong Tang (2016) offers a version of indicator reliabilism. As we will see, both face the same objection. If they are right about what justification is, it is mysterious why we care about justification, for neither of the accounts explains how justification is connected to anything of epistemic value. We will call this the Connection Problem. I begin by describing Dunn's process reliabilism and Tang's indicator reliabilism. I argue that, understood correctly, they are, in fact, extensionally equivalent. That is, Dunn and Tang reach the top of the same mountain, albeit by different routes. However, I argue that both face the Connection Problem. In response, I offer my own version of reliabilism, which is both process and indicator, and I argue that it solves that problem. Furthermore, I show that it is also extensionally equivalent to Dunn's reliabilism and Tang's. Thus, I reach the top of the same mountain as well.

Copyright
Corresponding author
References
Hide All
Alston, W. 1988. ‘An Internalist Externalism.’ Synthese, 74: 265–83.
Alston, W. 2005. Beyond ‘Justification’: Dimensions of Epistemic Evaluation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Comesaña, J. 2006. ‘A Well-founded Solution to the Generality Problem.’ Philosophical Studies, 129: 2747.
de Finetti, B. 1974. Theory of Probability, Vol. I. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Dorst, K. 2017. ‘Lockeans Maximize Expected Accuracy.’ Mind 10.1093/mind/fzx028.
Dunn, J. 2015. ‘Reliability for Degrees of Belief.’ Philosophical Studies, 172(7): 1929–52.
Easwaran, K. 2016. ‘Dr Truthlove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Bayesian Probabilities.’ Noûs, 50(4): 816–53.
Feldman, R. 1985. ‘Reliability and Justification.’ The Monist, 68(2): 159–74.
Goldman, A. 1979. ‘What is Justified Belief?’ In Pappas, G. S. (ed.), Justification and Knowledge, pp. 125. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Goldman, A. 2008. ‘Immediate Justification and Process Reliabilism.’ In Smith, Q. (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 6382. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Greaves, H. and Wallace, D. 2006. ‘Justifying Conditionalization: Conditionalization Maximizes Expected Epistemic Utility.’ Mind, 115(459): 607–32.
Hájek, A. ms. ‘A Puzzle about Partial Belief.’
Horowitz, S. 2014. ‘Immoderately Rational.’ Philosophical Studies, 167: 4156.
Joyce, J. M. 1998. ‘A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.’ Philosophy of Science, 65(4): 575603.
Joyce, J. M. 2009. ‘Accuracy and Coherence: Prospects for an Alethic Epistemology of Partial Belief.’ In Huber, F. and Schmidt-Petri, C. (eds), Degrees of Belief, pp. 263–97. New York, NY: Springer.
Lange, M. 1999. ‘Calibration and the Epistemological Role of Bayesian Conditionalization.’ Journal of Philosophy, 96(6): 294324.
Levinstein, B. A. 2015. ‘With All Due Respect: The Macro-Epistemology of Disagreement.’ Philosophers’ Imprint, 15(3): 120.
Moss, S. 2011. ‘Scoring Rules and Epistemic Compromise.’ Mind, 120(480): 1053–69.
Pettigrew, R. 2012. ‘Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle.’ Philosophical Review, 121(2): 241–75.
Pettigrew, R. 2013. ‘A New Epistemic Utility Argument for the Principal Principle.’ Episteme, 10(1): 1935.
Pettigrew, R. 2016a. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettigrew, R. 2016b. ‘Jamesian Epistemology Formalised: An Explication of ‘The Will to Believe’.’ Episteme, 13(3): 253–68.
Pettigrew, R. Forthcoming. ‘On the Accuracy of Group Credences.’ In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Predd, J., Seiringer, R., Lieb, E. H., Osherson, D., Poor, V. and Kulkarni, S. 2009. ‘Probabilistic Coherence and Proper Scoring Rules.’ IEEE Transactions of Information Theory, 55(10): 4786–92.
Savage, L. J. 1971. ‘Elicitation of Personal Probabilities and Expectations.’ Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336): 783801.
Schoenfield, M. 2015. ‘Bridging Rationality and Accuracy.’ Journal of Philosophy, 112(12): 633–57.
Seidenfeld, T. 1985. ‘Calibration, Coherence, and Scoring Rules.’ Philosophy of Science, 52(2): 274–94.
Shimony, A. 1988. ‘An Adamite Derivation of the Calculus of Probability.’ In Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality, pp. 7989. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Tang, W. H. 2016. ‘Reliability Theories of Justified Credence.’ Mind, 125(497): 6394.
van Fraassen, B. C. 1983. ‘Calibration: Frequency Justification for Personal Probability.’ In Cohen, R. S. and Laudan, L. (eds), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis, pp. 295319. Dordrecht: Springer.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Episteme
  • ISSN: 1742-3600
  • EISSN: 1750-0117
  • URL: /core/journals/episteme
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed