Anna-Maria Asunta Eder
University of Cologne
Enjoying great popularity in decision theory, epistemology, and philosophy of science, Bayesianism as understood here is fundamentally concerned with epistemically ideal rationality. It assumes a tight connection between evidential probability and ideally rational credence, and usually interprets evidential probability in terms of such credence. Timothy Williamson challenges Bayesianism by arguing that evidential probabilities cannot be adequately interpreted as the credences of an ideal agent. From this and his assumption that evidential probabilities cannot be interpreted as the actual credences of human agents either, he concludes that no interpretation of evidential probabilities in terms of credence is adequate. I argue to the contrary. My overarching aim is to show on behalf of Bayesians how one can still interpret evidential probabilities in terms of ideally rational credence and how one can maintain a tight connection between evidential probabilities and ideally rational credence even if the former cannot be interpreted in terms of the latter. By achieving this aim I illuminate the limits and prospects of Bayesianism.
Keywords Ideal Rationality  Credences  Bayesianism  Moore-Paradoxical Propositions  Logical Omniscience
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2019
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axz043
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Knowledge and Its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2005 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):452-458.
Knowledge and its Limits.Timothy Williamson - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 64 (1):200-201.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Interpretations of Probability.Alan Hájek - 2007 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Evidence of Evidence as Higher Order Evidence.Anna-Maria A. Eder & Peter Brössel - 2019 - In Mattias Skipper & Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen (eds.), Higher-Order Evidence: New Essays. Oxford University Press. pp. 62-83.
Ambiguous Statements About Akrasia.Luis Rosa - forthcoming - Journal of Philosophy.
Disagreement in a Group: Aggregation, Respect for Evidence, and Synergy.Anna-Maria A. Eder - 2021 - In Fernando Broncano-Berrocal & Adam Carter (eds.), The Epistemology of Group Disagreement. Routledge. pp. 184-210.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bayesian Norms and Non-Ideal Agents.Julia Staffel - forthcoming - In Maria Lasonen-Aarnio & Clayton M. Littlejohn (eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy Evidence. Routledge.
Rational Credence Through Reasoning.Sinan Dogramaci - 2018 - Philosophers' Imprint 18.
Troubles for Bayesian Formal Epistemology.Terry Horgan - 2017 - Res Philosophica 94 (2):233-255.
Deference Done Right.Richard Pettigrew & Michael G. Titelbaum - 2014 - Philosophers' Imprint 14:1-19.
Ramsey's Foundations Extended to Desirabilities.Jordan Howard Sobel - 1998 - Theory and Decision 44 (3):231-278.
Vague Credence.Aidan Lyon - 2017 - Synthese 194 (10):3931-3954.
Subjective Probability and its Dynamics.Alan Hajek & Julia Staffel - forthcoming - In Markus Knauff & Wolfgang Spohn (eds.), MIT Handbook of Rationality. MIT Press.
Accuracy and Evidence.Richard Pettigrew - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (4):579-596.
Arguments For—Or Against—Probabilism?Alan Hájek - 2009 - In Franz Huber & Christoph Schmidt-Petri (eds.), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Springer. pp. 229--251.
Quantificational Credences.Benjamin Lennertz - 2015 - Philosophers' Imprint 15.
Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism&Quest;: Articles.Alan Hájek - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793-819.
Evidential Decision Theory and Medical Newcomb Problems.Arif Ahmed - 2005 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):191-198.


Added to PP index

Total views
776 ( #9,061 of 2,498,301 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
157 ( #3,832 of 2,498,301 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes