Search

We present a new justification for methodological triangulation (MT), the practice of using different methods to support the same scientific claim. Unlike existing accounts, our account captures cases in which the different methods in question are associated with, and rely on, incommensurable theories. Using a nonstandard Bayesian model, we show that even in such cases, a commitment to the minimal form of epistemic conservatism, captured by the rigidity condition that stands at the basis of Jeffrey's conditionalization, supports the practice of MT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the use of nudges by governmental agencies becomes more common, the need for normative guidelines regarding the processes by which decisions about the implementation of specific nudges are taken becomes more acute. In order to find a justified set of such guidelines one must meet several theoretical challenges to Libertarian Paternalism that arise at the foundational level. In this paper, I identify three central challenges to Libertarian Paternalism, and suggest that Susan Hurley's political philosophy as presented in her Natural Reasons (1989) can be viewed as offering powerful responses to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many philosophers in the field of meta-ethics believe that rational degrees of confidence in moral judgments should have a probabilistic structure, in the same way as do rational degrees of belief. The current paper examines this position, termed "moral Bayesianism," from an empirical point of view. To this end, we assessed the extent to which degrees of moral judgments obey the third axiom of the probability calculus, $${\rm{if\,P}}\left({{\rm{A}}\mathop \cap \nolimits {\rm{B}}} \right) = 0{\rm{\,then\,P}}\left({{\rm{A}}\mathop \cup \nolimits {\rm{B}}} \right) = {\rm{P}}\left({\rm{A}} \right) + {\rm{P}}\left({\rm{B}} \right)$$ if P A ∩ B = 0 then P A ∪ B = P A + P B , known as finite additivity, as compared to degrees of beliefs on the one hand and degrees of desires on the other. Results generally converged to show that degrees of moral judgment are more similar to degrees of belief than to degrees of desire in this respect. This supports the adoption of a Bayesian approach to the study of moral judgments. To further support moral Bayesianism, we also demonstrated its predictive power. Finally, we discuss the relevancy of our results to the meta-ethical debate between moral cognitivists and moral non-cognitivists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I present a puzzle about the epistemic role beliefs about experts' beliefs play in a rational agent's system of beliefs. It is shown that accepting the claim that an expert's degree of belief in a proposition, A, screens off the evidential support another proposition, B, gives to A in case the expert knows and is certain about whether B is true, leads in some cases to highly unintuitive conclusions. I suggest a solution to the puzzle according to which evidential screening off is rejected, but show that the price of this solution is either giving up on the mere idea of deferring to expert's opinion or giving up on Bayesian conditionalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on explanation for the fairness of lotteries as distributional devices and existing accounts of John Broome and Richard Bradley. It mentions assumption the Decreasing Marginal Value of Chance assumption (DMVC) and specific feature of the structure of distributional justice. It also mentions proportional satisfaction requirement makes it possible to justify the use of lotteries using Broome's account.