Bristol Research (University of Bristol) · 2014 · 72 citations · 14 references
Open access
BusinessPhilosophyDecision TheoryEpistemologyProbability TheoryChoice Under UncertaintyDecision Under UncertaintyDecision-making Under UncertaintyEpistemic LogicRational ChoiceBayesian EpistemologyDecision-theoretic EpistemologyEpistemic Decision TheoryEpistemic FoundationsRational Agents
There are many kinds of epistemic experts to which we might wish to defer in setting our credences. These include: highly rational agents, objective chances, our own future credences, our own current credences, and evidential (or logical) probabilities. But exactly what constraint does a deference requirement place on an agent's credences? In this paper we consider three answers, inspired by three principles that have been proposed for deference to objective chances. We consider how these options fare when applied to the other kinds of epistemic experts mentioned above. Of the three deference principles we consider, we argue that two of the options face insuperable difficulties. The third, on the other hand, fares well|at least when it is applied in a particular way.
14
Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self‐Knowledge
Richard Eldridge · Philosophical Investigations · 2003 · 1.1K citations
C. van Fraassen · The Journal of Philosophy · 1984 · 528 citations
Mark A. Burgman, Marissa F. McBride, Raquel Ashton et al. · PLoS ONE · 2011 · 314 citations · Full text
Correcting The Guide to Objective Chance
When Are Two Heads Better than One and Why?
Asher Koriat · Science · 2012 · 262 citations