Advertisement

The Bayesian Objection

  • Luca MorettiEmail author
Chapter
  • 19 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

In this chapter I analyse an objection to phenomenal conservatism to the effect that phenomenal conservatism is unacceptable because it is incompatible with Bayesianism. I consider a few responses and dismiss them as misled or problematic. Then, I argue that the objection doesn’t go through because it rests on an implausible formalization of the notion of seeming-based justification. In the final part of the chapter, I investigate how seeming-based justification and justification based on one’s reflective belief that one has a seeming interact with each another.

Keywords

Phenomenal conservatism Bayesianism Perceptual justification Immediate and non-immediate justification Inferential and non-inferential justification  Reflective justification Reflective awareness 

References

  1. Balcerak-Jackson M (2016) Perceptual fundamentalism and a priori bootstrapping. Philos Stud 173:2087–2103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen S (2005) Why basic knowledge is easy knowledge. Philos Phenomenol Res 70:417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fumerton R (1995) Metaepistemology and skepticism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  4. Huemer M (2007) Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philos Phenomenol Res 74(1):30–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jehle D, Weatherson B (2012) Dogmatism, probability, and logical uncertainty. In: Restall G, Russell G (eds) New waves in philosophical logic. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kung P (2010) On having no reason: dogmatism and Bayesian confirmation. Synthese 177:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moretti L, Piazza T (2013) When warrant transmits and when it doesn’t. Synthese 190:2481–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pryor J (2004) What’s wrong with Moore’s argument? Philos Issues 14:349–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pryor J (2007) Uncertainty and undermining. Unpublished manuscript downloadable at: https://www.jimpryor.net/research/papers/Uncertainty.pdf
  10. Schiffer S (2004) Skepticism and the vagaries of justified belief. Philos Stud 119:161–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Silins N (2007) Basic justification and the Moorean response to the skeptic. In: Gendler TS, Hawthorne J (eds) Oxford studies in epistemology, vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 108–140Google Scholar
  12. Tucker C (2013) Seemings and justification: an introduction. In: Tucker C (ed) Seemings and justification: new essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weatherson B (2007) The Bayesian and the dogmatist. Proc Aristot Soc 107:169–185Google Scholar
  14. Wedgwood R (2013) A priori bootstrapping. In: Casullo A, Thurow J (eds) The a priori in philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 226–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Weisberg J (2011) Varieties of Bayesianism. In: Gabbay D, Hartmann S, Woods J (eds) Handbook of the history of logic, vol 10. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 477–551Google Scholar
  16. White R (2006) Problems for dogmatism. Philos Stud 131:525–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wright C (2007) Perils of Dogmatism. In: Nuccetelli S (ed) Themes from G. E. Moore: new essays in epistemology and ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–48Google Scholar
  18. Wright C (2011) McKinsey one more time. In: Hatzimoysis A (ed) Self-knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 80–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations