Skip to main content

Dogmatism, Probability and Logical Uncertainty

  • Chapter
New Waves in Philosophical Logic

Part of the book series: New Waves in Philosophy ((NWIP))

Abstract

Many epistemologists hold that an agent can come to justifiably believe that p is true by seeing that it appears that p is true, without having any antecedent reason to believe that visual impressions are generally reliable. Certain reliabilists think this, at least if the agent’s vision is generally reliable. And it is a central tenet of dogmatism (as described by Pryor (2000) and Pryor (2004)) that this is possible. Against these positions it has been argued (e.g. by Cohen (2005) and White (2006)) that this violates some principles from probabilistic learning theory. To see the problem, let’s note what the dogmatist thinks we can learn by paying attention to how things appear. (The reliabilist says the same things, but we’ll focus on the dogmatist.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Cohen, Stewart. 2005. "Why Basic Knowledge is Easy Knowledge." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70: 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hájek, Alan. 2003. "What Conditional Probability Could Not Be." Synthese 137: 273–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehle, David. 2009. Some Results in Bayesian Confirmation Theory with Applications. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehle, David and Fitelson, Branden. 2009. "What is the "Equal Weight View"?" Episteme 6: 280–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul. 1965. "Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic." In Michael Dummett and John Crossley (eds), Formal Systems and Recursive Functions. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Karl and Miller, David. 1987. "Why Probabilistic Support is Not Inductive." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 321: 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, James. 2000. "The Sceptic and the Dogmatist." Noûs 34: 517–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • "What’s Wrong with Moore’s Argument?" Philosophical Issues 14: 349–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherson, Brian. 2003. "From Classical to Intuitionistic Probability." Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 44: 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • "The Bayesian and the Dogmatist." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107: 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Roger. 2006. "Problems for Dogmatism." Philosophical Studies 131: 525–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R. G. (forthcoming). "Gradational Accuracy and Non-classical Semantics." Review of Symbolic Logic, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 David Jehle and Brian Weatherson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jehle, D., Weatherson, B. (2012). Dogmatism, Probability and Logical Uncertainty. In: Restall, G., Russell, G. (eds) New Waves in Philosophical Logic. New Waves in Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137003720_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics