Abstract: When a person has evidence about their capacity to assess the evidence for or against a proposition, for example, when they have evidence that their assessment is subject to bias, they have higher-order evidence. A popular view in epistemology is that higher-order evidence can make a difference to whether it is rational for a…
Epistemology Seminar
Events
Calendar of Events
|
M
Monday
|
T
Tuesday
|
W
Wednesday
|
T
Thursday
|
F
Friday
|
S
Saturday
|
S
Sunday
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
1 event,
-
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
1 event,
-
Abstract: Argumentation is often contrasted with testimony in that in cases of testimony, an epistemic agent (presumably) primarily evaluates the trustworthiness of the source of information (the informant), whereas in argumentation there is (presumably) primarily engagement with the content communicated. I have argued however (Dutilh Novaes 2020) that trust and trustworthiness in fact play an… |
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
1 event,
-
Abstract: What is the nature of ones justification to use a logical principle such as Modus Ponens in reasoning? It is widely agreed amongst epistemologists of logic that such justification cannot be internalist. One key reason offered for this view is that internalist accounts of justification are susceptible to Carroll-style regresses. In this talk, I… |
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
1 event,
-
Abstract: Hinge propositions, or simply hinges, are primitive certainties that we (must) presuppose in our normal inquiries. Recently there has been a lot of interest in hinge epistemology, which is a kind of epistemology that sets the notion of hinge at the center stage. This paper puts forward a dilemma leveled against hinge epistemologists. The… |
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
1 event,
-
Abstract: Argumentation is often contrasted with testimony in that in cases of testimony, an epistemic agent (presumably) primarily evaluates the trustworthiness of the source of information (the informant), whereas in argumentation there is (presumably) primarily engagement with the content communicated. I have argued however (Dutilh Novaes 2020) that trust and trustworthiness in fact play an… |
0 events,
|
0 events,
|
0 events,
|