Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Accurate believers are deductively cogent

Bibliographic Data

ID21364045
AuthorsMatthew Hewson (0000-0002-3532-107X, Oxford University Oxford UK, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume56
Issue4
Pages763-786
Publication date2022-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueNoûs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0029-4624 • E-ISSN: 1468-0068
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/nous.12397
OpenAlexW4200119393
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited22

This paper argues that the agent concerned to have accurate (outright) beliefs will have a consistent and multi‐premise closed belief set, and not a (merely) single‐premise closed and (merely) pairwise consistent belief set, as has often been thought. This argument rests on the fact that we need a notion of accuracy coherence for belief that is belief‐sensitive ; sensitive to one's perspective, in a way that the standard belief‐insensitive notion of accuracy coherence is not. The choice of the belief‐sensitive over belief‐insensitive notion is defended, as is the choice of this particular belief‐sensitive kind of accuracy coherence over other belief‐sensitive rivals. Our conclusion is that accurate believers are deductively cogent

Argument (complex analysis) · Belief revision · Belief system · Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) · Epistemology · Pairwise comparison · Perspective (graphical) · Premise · Set (abstract data type) · Artificial Intelligence · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Free Will and Agency · Mathematics · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

  • Accuracy and infinity

    Open Access•M Kelley, Sven Neth•Synthese•2022

  • Credence and belief

    Open Access•Minkyung Wang•Philosophical Studies•2025

  • Knowledge and Lotteries

    John Hawthorne•Knowledge and lotteries•2003

  • Accuracy and the Laws of Credence

    Richard Pettigrew•Accuracy and the Laws of Credence•2016

  • Probabilistic Knowledge

    Sarah Mo, Sarah Moss•Probabilistic Knowledge•2018

  • Beliefs, Degrees of Belief, and the Lockean Thesis

    Open Access•Richard Foley•Degrees of Belief•2009

  • Justifying Conditionalization

    Hilary Greaves, David Wallace•Mind•2006

  • Suspended judgment

    Open Access•Jane Friedman•Philosophical Studies•2013

  • What's Wrong with Moore's Argument?

    Open Access•James Pryor•Philosophical Issues•2004

  • The paradox of the preface

    David Makinson, D C Makinson•Analysis•1965

  • Lockeans Maximize Expected Accuracy

    Open Access•Kevin Dorst•Mind•2019

  • A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism

    Open Access•James M Joyce•Philosophy of Science•1998

  • An Objective Justification of Bayesianism I

    Open Access•Hannes Leitgeb, Richard Pettigrew•Philosophy of Science•2010

  • An Objective Justification of Bayesianism II

    Open Access•Hannes Leitgeb, Richard Pettigrew•Philosophy of Science•2010

  • Immodest Inductive Methods

    Open Access•David Lewis•Philosophy of Science•1971

  • In Defence of Closure

    Richard Feldman•The Philosophical Quarterly•1995

Unique citing works2
Citations per year0,5
Citation span2022 - 2025 (4)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 2

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae