fsopho

• fsopho 28 May 2013 12:40 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Decius’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Me neither—but I am not thinking that it is a good idea to divorce h from b.

  Just a technical point: P(x) = P(x|b)P(b) + P(x|~b)P(~b)

• fsopho 27 May 2013 21:58 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Decius’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Yes, we agree on that. There is an example that copes with the structure you just mentioned. Suppose that

  h: I will get rid of the flu

  e1: I took Fluminex

  e2: I took Fluminalva

  b: Fluminex and Fluminalva cancel each other’s effect against flu

  Now suppose that both, Fluminex and Fluminalva, are effective against flu. Given this setting, P(h|b&e1)>P(h|b) and P(h|b&e2)>P(h|b), but P(h|b&e1&e2)<P(h|b). If the use of background b is bothering you, just embed the information about the canceling of effects in each of the pieces of evidence e1 and e2.

  I see further problems with the Positive Relevance account, like the one that lies in saying that the fact that a swimmer is swimming is evidence that she will drown—just because swimming increases the probability of drowning. I see more hope for a combination of these two accounts, but one in which quantification over the background b is very important. We shouldn’t require that in order for e to be evidence that h it has to increase the probability of h conditional in any background b.

• fsopho 27 May 2013 18:25 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  So, he claims that it is just a necessary condition—not a sufficient one. I didn’t reach the point where he offers the further conditions that, together with high probability, are supposed to be sufficient for evidential support.

  p.s: still, you earned a point for the comment =|

• fsopho 27 May 2013 14:16 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  But that these are the truth conditions for evidential support relations does not mean that only tautologies can be evidence, nor that only sets of tautologies can be one’s background. If you prefer, this is supposed to be a ‘test’ for checking if particular bits of information are evidence for something else. So I agree that backgrounds in minds is one of the things we got to be interested in, as long as we want to say something about rationality. I just don’t think that the usefulness of the test (the new truth-conditions) is killed. =]

• fsopho 27 May 2013 14:10 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Decius’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  All right, I see. I agree that order is not determinant for evidential support relations.

  It seems to me that the relevant sentence is not meaningful, or false.

• fsopho 27 May 2013 14:05 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: pragmatist’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Actually, Achinstein’s claim is that the first one does not need to be satisfied—the probability of h does not need to be increased by e in order for e to be evidence that h. He gives up the first condition because of the counterexamples.

• fsopho 27 May 2013 14:02 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Thanks. I would say that what we have in front of us are clear cases where someone have evidence for something else. In the example given, we have in front of us that both, e1 and e2 (together with the assumption that the NYT and WP are reliable) are evidence for g. So, presumably, there is an agreement between people offering the truth conditions for ‘e is evidence that h’ about the range of cases where there is evidence—while the is no agreement between people answering the question about the sound of the three, because the don’t agree on the range of cases where sound occurs. Otherwise, there would be no counterexamples such as the one that Achinstein tried to offer. If I offer some set of truth-conditions for Fa, and one of the data that I use to explain what it is for something to be F is the range of cases where F is applied, then if you present to me a case where F applies but it is not satisfied by the truth-conditions I offered, I will think that there is something wrong with that truth-conditions.

  Trying to flesh out truth-conditions for a certain type of sentence is not the same thing as giving a definition. I’m not saying you’re completely wrong on this, I just really think that this is not merely verbal dispute. About what would I expect to accomplish by finding out the best set of truth-conditions for ‘e is evidence that h’, I would say that a certain concept that is used in the law, natural science and philosophy has now clear boundaries, and if some charlatan offers an argument in a public space for some conclusion of his interest, I can argue with him that he has no evidence for his claims.

  Thanks for the reference to the fortitudinence concept—I didn’t know it yet.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 22:19 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Right, so, one think that is left open by both definitions is the kind of interpretation given to the function P. Is that suppose to be interpreted as a (rational) credence function? If so, the Positive Relevance account would say that e is evidence that h when one is rational in having a bigger credence in h when one has e as evidence than when one does not have e as evidence. For some, though, it would seem that in our case the agent that already knows b and e1 wouldn’t be rational in having a bigger credence that Bill will win the lottery if she learns e2.

  But I think we can try to solve the problem without having to deal with the interpretation of the probability issue. One way to go, for the defender of the Positive Relevance account, would be to say that the counterexample assumes a universal quantification over the conditionalizing sentence that was not intended—one would be interpreting Positive Relevance as saying:

  • (For every background b) e is evidence that h iff P(h|e&b) > P(h|b)

  But such interpretation, the defender of Positive Relevance could say, is wrong, and it is wrong just because of the kinds of examples as the one presented in the post. So, in order for e2 to be evidence that h, e2 does not need to increase the probability of h conditional on every conceivable background b. Specifically, it doesn’t need to increase the probability of h conditional on b when b contains e1, for example. But how would the definition look like without such quantification. Well, I don’t quite know sufficiently about it yet (this is new to me), but I think that maybe the following would do:

  • (For every tautology b) e is evidence that h iff P(h|e&b) > P(h|b)

  The new definition does not require e to increase h’s probability conditional on every possible background. How does that sound?

• fsopho 26 May 2013 21:04 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  This is not a case where we have two definitions talking about two sorts of things (like sound waves versus perception of sound waves). This is a case where we have two rival mathematical definitions to account for the relation of evidential support. You seem to think that the answer to questions about disputes over distinct definitions is in that post you are referring to. I read the post, and I didn’t find the answer to the question I’m interested in answering—which is not even that of deciding between two rival definitions.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:51 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: ozziegooen’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Yeah, one of the problems of the example is that it seems to take for granted that both, the NYT and WP are 100% reliable.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:40 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: elharo’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  So, I’ll kind of second the observation in the comment above. It seems to me that, from the fact that reading the same story in the Washington Post does not make your epistemic situation better, it does not seem to follow that the Post story is not evidence that Bill win the lottery. That is: from the fact that a certain piece of evidence is swamped by another piece of evidence in a certain situation, it does not follow that the former is not evidence. We can see that it is evidence just following your steps: we conceive another situation where I didn’t read the Times story but I read the Post story—and it is evidence that Bill win the lottery in this situation.

  I agree that it seems just wrong to grant that strong evidence and weak evidence is determined by the access we have to evidence in order of time. But from the fact that one does not gain more justification to believe h by learning e it does not follow that e is evidence that h, all things considered.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:27 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Decius’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Thanks. Your first question is showing a case where the evidential support of e1 is swamped by the evidential support of g, right? It seems that, if I have g as evidence, e1 doesn’t change my epistemic situation as regards the proposition that Bill will win the lottery. So if we answer that e1 is not evidence that h in this case, we are assuming that if one piece of evidence is swamped by another, it is not evidence anymore. I wouldn’t go that way (would you?), because in a situation where I didn’t see Bill buying the tickets, I still would have e2 as evidence. About the question over not knowing the exact number of tickets bought by Bill, I don’t know what to say besides this: seems to be a case where Jeffrey conditionalization is wellcome, given the ‘uncertain’ character of evidence.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:12 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Richard_Kennaway’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Yes I did—but thanks for the tip anyway.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:09 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Thanks Vaniver. Doesn’t your example shows something unsatisfactory about the High Probability interpretation also? Given that P(A or ~A|My socks are white)>1/​2, that my socks are white would also count as evidence that A or ~A. Your point seems to suggest that there must be something having to do with content in common between the evidence and the hypothesis.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 13:03 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: ozziegooen’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  Thanks, that’s interesting. The exercise of thinking how people would act to gather evidence having in mind the two probabilistic definitions gives food for thought. Specifically, I’m thinking that, if we were to tell people: “Look for evidence in favor of h and, remember, evidence is that which …”, where we substitute ‘...’ by the relevant definition of evidence, they would gather evidence in a different way from the way we naturally look for evidence for some hypotheses. The agents to whom that advice was given would have a reflexive access to their own definition of evidence, and they would gather only what is in the scope of that definition. People being given the first definition of evidence could balk when looking for evidence that Obama will be involved in an airplane accident: if they find out that Obama will be in an airplane today, they find out evidence that Obama will be involved in an airplane accident. Now given that these people would have the advice we gave them in mind, they could start questioning themselves if they didn’t receive silly advice.

• fsopho 26 May 2013 12:49 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: ’s comment on: Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

  I agree that some philosophical searches for analyses of concepts turn out generating endless, fruitless, sequences of counterexamples and new definitions. However, it is not the case that, always, when we are trying to find out the truth conditions for something, we are engaged in such kind of unproductive thinking. As long as we care about what it is for something to be evidence for something else (we may care about this because we want to understand what gives support to scientific theories, etc), it seems legitimate for us to look for satisfactory truth conditions for ‘e is evidence that h’. Trying to make the boundaries of our concepts clear is also part of the project of optimizing our rationality.

Ev­i­dence and coun­terex­am­ple to pos­i­tive relevance

• fsopho 13 Dec 2011 17:10 UTC

  2 points

  on: two puz­zles on ra­tio­nal­ity of defeat

  So, I would like to thank you guys for the hints and critical comments here—you are helping me a lot! I’ll read what you recommended in order to investigate the epistemological properties of the degree-of-belief version of bayesianism. For now, I’m just full of doubts: “does bayesianism really stand as a normative theory of rational doxastic attitudes?”; “what is the relation between degrees of belief and evidential support?”, “is it correct to say that people reason in accordance to probability principles when they reason correctly?”, “is the idea of defeating evidence an ilusion?”, and still others. =]

• fsopho 13 Dec 2011 13:20 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Manfred’s comment on: two puz­zles on ra­tio­nal­ity of defeat

  I can’t believe people apply Baye’s theorem when confronted to counter-evidence. What evidence do we have to believe that Bayesian probability theories describe the way we reason inductively?

• fsopho 13 Dec 2011 13:10 UTC

  0 points

  in reply to: Gust’s comment on: two puz­zles on ra­tio­nal­ity of defeat

  we are not justified in assigning probability 1 to the belief that ‘A=A’ or to the belief that ‘p → p’? Why not?