Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 1623–1640 | Cite as

The imprecise impermissivist’s dilemma

  • Clinton CastroEmail author
  • Casey Hart
Article
  • 203 Downloads

Abstract

Impermissivists hold that an agent with a given body of evidence has at most one rationally permitted attitude that she should adopt towards any particular proposition. Permissivists deny this, often motivating permissivism by describing scenarios that pump our intuitions that the agent could reasonably take one of several attitudes toward some proposition. We criticize the following impermissivist response: while it seems like any of that range of attitudes is permissible, what is actually required is the single broad attitude that encompasses all of these single attitudes. While this might seem like an easy way to win over permissivists, we argue that this impermissivist response leads to an indefensible epistemology; permissive intuitions are not so easily co-opted.

Keywords

Uniqueness Permissivism Bayesianism Ranged credence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Jennifer Carr, Kenny Easwaran, Brian Hedden, James Joyce, Ben Schwan, Reuben Stern, Olav Vassend, participants at the 2016 meeting of the Wisconsin Philosophical Association, the 2016 meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy, and the 2017 Central Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, and two anonymous referees. We are especially grateful to William Roche and Michael Titelbaum for extensive feedback.

References

  1. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Feldman, R. (2007). Reasonable religious disagreements. In L. Antony (Ed.), Philosophers without gods: Meditations on atheism and the secular (pp. 194–214). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  3. Hart, C., & Titelbaum, M. G. (2015). Intuitive dilation? Thought: A. Journal of Philosophy, 4(4), 252–262.Google Scholar
  4. Hedden, B. (2015). Reasons without persons: Rationality, identity, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Herron, T., Seidenfeld, T., & Wasserman, L. (1994). The extent of dilation of sets of probabilities and the asymptotics of robust bayesian inference. PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1994, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Joyce, J. M. (2010). A defense of imprecise credences in inference and decision making. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 281–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kelly, T. (2013). Evidence can be permissive. In M. Steup & J. Turri (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (p. 298). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Kopec, M., & Titelbaum, M. G. (2016). The uniqueness thesis. Philosophy Compass, 11(4), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lyon, A. (2015). Vague credence. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0782-5.
  10. Meacham, C. J. G. (2013). Impermissive bayesianism. Erkenntnis, S6, 1–33.Google Scholar
  11. Rinard, S. (2013). Against radical credal imprecision. Thought: A. Journal of Philosophy, 2(1), 157–165.Google Scholar
  12. Walley, P. (1991). Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weatherson, B. (2007). The bayesian and the dogmatist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 107(1pt2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. White, R. (2005). Epistemic permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. White, R. (2009). Evidential symmetry and mushy credence. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology (pp. 161–186). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. White, R. (2010). You just believe that because. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 573–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations