Hugur - 01.01.2016, Qupperneq 162

162 Finnur Dellsén
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux.
Kaplan, Mark. 1985. It’s Not What You Know that Counts. The Journal of Philosophy
82, 350–363.
Kaplan, Mark. 1996. Decision Theory as Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kolodny, Niko. 2007. How Does Coherence Matter? Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society 117, 229–263.
Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kyburg, Henry E. 1961. Probability and the Logic of Rational Belief. Middletown:
Wesleyan University Press.
Maher, Patrick. 1988. Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery.
Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association (1. bindi, bls. 273–285). Ritstj.
Arthur Fine og Jarrett Leplin. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Maher, Patrick. 1993. Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makinson, David. 1965. The Paradox of the Preface. Analysis 25, 205–207.
Sober, Elliot. 2009. Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential
Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-tuning, and Firing Squads.
Philosophical Studies 143, 63–90.
Strevens, Michael. 2009. Objective Evidence and Absence: Comment on Sober.
Philosophical Studies 143, 91–100.
Tversky, Amos og Daniel Kahneman. 1983. Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning:
The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment. Psychological Review 90, 293–315.
van Fraassen, Bas. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Abstract
From Belief to Credence and Back Again: An Overview of Bayesian
Epistemology
This paper discusses the delicate relationship between traditional epistemology
and the increasingly influential probabilistic (or ‘Bayesian’) approach to epistem-
ology. The paper introduces some of the key ideas of probabilistic epistemology,
including credences (degrees of belief ), Bayes’ theorem, conditionalization,
and Dutch Book arguments. The tension between traditional and probabilistic
epistem ology is brought out by considering the lottery and preface para doxes
as they relate to rational (binary) belief and credence respectively. It is then
arg ue d that this tension can be alleviated by rejecting the requirement that
rational (binary) beliefs must be consistent and closed under logical entailment.
Instead, it is suggested that the requirements of consistency and closure apply to
a different type of binary propositional attitude, viz. acceptance.
Hugur 2017-6.indd 162 8/8/2017 5:53:58 PM