Can you recommend an overview of everything wrong with probabilistic epistemology? I haven’t found one. There’s lots of papers that say “this particular objection is fatal, so why don’t you guys stop pretending,” but maybe no compendium of those?
-
Show this thread
-
Problem is, for each objection, probabilists say “that’s not fatal, we can deal with it (in special cases at least) by adding a whole lot of extra complexity to our story.”
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Collecting all the nearly-fatal objections to probabilistic epistemology in one place would issue a more difficult challenge: can you accommodate all these simultaneously? I don’t want to do this job, but it would be a major service if someone did. (Or has!)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Courtesy
@ArtirKel, here is a list of eight (nearly?) fatal problems with (Bayesian) probabilism, with brief explanations. It would be great to have something like this, but more comprehensive, and with more discussion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/#PotPro …3 replies 4 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness @ArtirKel
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil is a great place to start learning about a lot of stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.