Formal models of source reliability.
The paper introduces, compares and contrasts formal models of source reliability proposed in the epistemology literature, in particular the prominent models of Bovens and Hartmann (Bayesian epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) and Olsson (Episteme 8(02):127–143, 2011). All are Bayesi...
| Published in: | Synthese Vol. 198; no. 23; pp. 5773 - 5802 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
Oct2021 Supplement 23
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=153415565&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 153415565 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2021 Supplement 23 vid: 198 iid: 23 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 153415565 10.1007/s11229-020-02595-2 ppf: 5773 ppct: 29 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.7MB tig: atl: Formal models of source reliability. aug: au: Merdes, Christoph von Sydow, Momme Hahn, Ulrike affil: ZiWiS, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen Nürnberg, Bismarckstraße 8, 91054, Erlangen, Germany Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Ludwigstr. 31, 80539, Munich, Germany Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, WC1E 7HX, London, UK su: Oxford University Press Theory of knowledge sug: subj: Oxford University Press Theory of knowledge keyword: Bayes Source reliability Testimony ab: The paper introduces, compares and contrasts formal models of source reliability proposed in the epistemology literature, in particular the prominent models of Bovens and Hartmann (Bayesian epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) and Olsson (Episteme 8(02):127–143, 2011). All are Bayesian models seeking to provide normative guidance, yet they differ subtly in assumptions and resulting behavior. Models are evaluated both on conceptual grounds and through simulations, and the relationship between models is clarified. The simulations both show surprising similarities and highlight relevant differences between these models. Most importantly, however, our evaluations reveal that important normative concerns arguably remain unresolved. The philosophical implications of this for testimony are discussed. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2021. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2021 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|