Abstract
dc:description.abstractMy dissertation investigates two questions from within a partial belief framework: First, when and how should deference to experts or other information sources be qualified? Second, how closely is epistemology related to other philosophical fields, such as metaphysics, ethics, and decision theory? Chapter 1 discusses David Lewis's "Big Bad Bug", an argument for the conclusion that the Principal Principle-the thesis that one's credence in a proposition A should equal one's expectation of A's chance, provided one has no inadmissible information-is incompatible with Humean Supervenience-the thesis that that laws of nature, dispositions, and objective chances supervene on the distribution of categorical properties in the world (past, present, and future). I map out the logical structure of the Big Bad Bug, survey a range of possible responses to it, and argue that none of the responses are very appealing. Chapter 2 discusses Bas van Fraassen's Reflection principle-the thesis that one's current credence in a proposition A should equal one's expected future credence in A. Van Fraassen has formulated a diachronic Dutch book argument for Reflection, but other authors cite counterexamples to Reflection that appear to undermine the credibility of diachronic Dutch books. I argue that a suitably qualified version of Reflection gets around the counterexamples. I distinguish between Dutch books that reveal incoherence-like the diachronic Dutch book for conditionalization-and Dutch books that reveal a type of problem I call selfdoubt. I argue that violating Reflection is a type of self-doubt rather than a type of incoherence.
Degree
thesis:*- Department dc:contributor.department
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Linguistics and Philosophy.
- Grantor dc:publisher
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Year dc:date.issued
- 2009
Author and committee
dc:creator, dc:contributor.*- Author dc:creator
-
- Briggs, Rachael (Rachael Amy)
- Advisor dc:contributor.advisor
-
- Robert Stalnaker.
Subjects
dc:subject × 1Rights
dc:rights- Statement dc:rights
-
- M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.
- Licence dc:rights.uri
- Language dc:language.iso
- eng
Identifiers
dc:identifier.*- Handle dc:identifier.uri
- http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/47829
- OAI identifier oai:identifier
- oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/47829