Consistency and Epistemic Probability
ABSTRACT: Is consistency always epistemically virtuous? In this paper, I examine one threat to the traditional view that consistency is a minimum requirement for rational belief. Central to the argument is the notion of epistemic probability, understood as the degree of support or confirmation provided by the total available evidence. My strategy in examining this argument is to apply analogous reasoning to carefully tailored examples. The conclusions which emerge are substantive, informative and utterly implausible. I conclude, first, that the argument for inconsistency fails and, second, that it fails because epistemic probability does not conform to the axioms of the probability calculus. A plausible alternate model for determining degree of support is briefly considered.
Is consistency always epistemically virtuous? Is it possible for a set of rational beliefs to be inconsistent? The traditional view has been that logical consistency is a minimum requirement for rational belief. Recently, this traditional view has been challenged, and is now in some disrepute. The issue is not only of interest in its own right, but also has bearing on several other aspects of our conception of justified belief. In particular, it is a critical issue for the coherence theories of justification which have been so prominent of late, for coherence is normally understood in such a way as to presuppose logical consistency. (1)
Three distinct lines of argument against consistency can be discerned in the current discussion (although not always clearly distinguished there): (i) the paradox of the lottery, (ii) the fallibility argument, the core of which is an inference from my fallibility in the past to ...
... middle of paper ...
...e Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 37.
(7) Note that throughout this paper, an assumption has been made which is necessary for the epistemic probability argument, as well as the analogous arguments, namely, that there is a degree of confirmation less than 1 which is sufficient for justified belief. If this assumption were not granted, then, of course, no conclusion concerning warranted belief would follow. But the same arguments would show that, in the cases presented, there is strong confirmation that there is a natural therapy which cures AIDS (or that someone has exhibited psychic powers). And this conclusion is itself quite absurd. It can be avoided, however, only by rejecting the fit between degree of confirmation and the calculus.
(8) This model for conjunction is endorsed by Pollock, op. cit., 248-49, and Cohen, op. cit., 221.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
(1) Kelly, Thomas (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg.1 – 36.
How would life be with no laws? It would be chaos and then some. People would be running around like maniacs. Our civilization needs people to go and protect not only the people but also the wildlife. That person is the game warden. The game warden is their for the better good of the people. It is not fair for someone to obey the rules and then have a person cheat and not get caught. The game warden is to go out and make hunting and fishing fair for everyone. He or she is doing a good job if the people are feeling protected, and the animals have a fair chance against the hunters. This career is important to every aspect of life. It teaches people of morals or life lessons. The people need to be protected, and the game warden is that protector. This career has many jobs and can be a big responsibility. The United States needs more game wardens. This career has many responsibilities and requires motivated individuals.
Michelson, D. The historical reception of Shirley Jackson's "the lottery". In: KURZBAN, Robert; PLATEK, Steve. 18th annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society at the University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University. 2006.
Becoming an orthodontist requires specific education, including: four years of college, four years of dental school, and two to three years of orthodontic residency. (Chaekal). The aspiring orthodontist may major in either health, premedical studies, or life studies. There are also required college courses such as biology, chemistry, and physics. This person will be prepared for dental school through classroom lectures, and laboratory instruction on the physiology of the human body, especially focusing on the structure of the mouth and jaw. (Education Portal, “Majors for an Aspiring Orthodontist”). After completing four years of college, they move on to dental school. However, it is not always a guaranteed acceptance since dental schools are quite competitive, and expensive.
Given the principles and explanation that John Stuart Mill gives in Utilitarianism, and given the assumptions and arguments of Harris’s “Survival Lottery,” Mill would not accept the implementation of the “Survival Lottery”. In this paper I will describe Mill’s utilitarian principles, provide a detailed summary of the “Survival Lottery”, and finally I will prove why Mill would not accept Harris’s lottery.
All people have to double check things once in a while, like if a door is locked or if the lights are off. But people with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, or OCD, have an urge to check and recheck items and the disorder “controls” what people do, and how people do tasks by causing them to repeatedly see how something looks or if something is organized. OCD can be a challenging disorder to live with as it causes anxiety levels to build up.
“The Lottery” (133) lacks formality when faced with protocol. Throughout the story, it is mentioned that the proceedings of the lottery had been either “forgotten or discarded” (Jackson 134). Even the customary ways of holding the lottery had been altered.
William Clifford author of the “Ethics of Belief” creates the argument that it is always wrong for anyone to believe anything upon ‘insufficient evidence’. What does Clifford define evidence as and what is sufficient? Clifford’s argument is more scientific. Basing our beliefs off methodical approaches. If we base all our decisions off sufficient and what we declare to be reliable then what do we stand for? We have our own credentials to believe things even if we do not know why. These beliefs could be innate and
1) In this paper I argue that Corliss Lamont’s argument for freedom of choice is false because three of his eight arguments against the Determinist illusion argument are the same. These three arguments creates one actual argument, I will call them the master argument. Lamont also never provides the full Determinist explanation on the idea that the perception to choose is an illusion. This falsifies his argument and makes it fail as a whole because he is not giving the Determinist illusion argument proper justice.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a type of anxiety disorder that can be best characterized by the recurrent or disturbing thoughts that are labeled as obsessions. Sometime these obsessions can take on the form of intrusive images or the unwanted impulses. The compulsions can come from the repetitive or ritualized behaviors that a person feels driven to perform on a daily basis. The majority of people with the diagnosis of OCD can have both obsessions and compulsions, but most of the times about 20% have obsessions alone while 10% may have the compulsions alone (Goodman M.D., 2013) . Common types that have been illustrated in individual’s diagnoses with OCD can be characterized with concerns of contamination, safety or harm to themselves, unwanted acts of aggression, the unacceptable sexual or religious thoughts, and the need for symmetry or exactness. While some of the most common compulsion can be characterized as excessive cleaning, checking, ordering, and arranging rituals or the counting and repeating routines activities that are done sometimes on a daily basis multiple times in a day.
People check things twice, but what if you feel the urge to repeat things ten times. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is an anxiety disorder that is characterized by obsessions and compulsions. People use obsessions and compulsions to relieve their anxiety. Without treatment obsessions and compulsions can eventually take over a person’s life. These obsessions and compulsions can be treated with medication or therapy making a person’s life more bearable. Dr. Dorothy Grice had said in an interview with Katie Charles, “There’s a wide range of severity, but in the most extreme cases, OCD can be extremely disabling especially when the compulsions become time-consuming and elaborate…”
Higgins, Tory. “Self-Discrepancy Theory: What Patterns of Self-Beliefs Cause People to Suffer?”(1989). Advances in Experimental Social psychology, Vol.22 (1989):93-136. Academic Press Inc.
There are many arguments for moral realism, one of which is presented by David Enoch, who posits a unique explanation of how normative truths can exist. He argues for moral realism by using his Indispensability Argument, which explains the necessity of normative facts in deliberation. I will argue that Enoch’s claim is valid in that it fairs well against opposition, however it shows weakness by not addressing moral subjectivity.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by