The Review Paradox: On The Diachronic Costs of Not Closing Rational Belief Under Conjunction

Noûs 48 (4):781-793 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We argue that giving up on the closure of rational belief under conjunction comes with a substantial price. Either rational belief is closed under conjunction, or else the epistemology of belief has a serious diachronic deficit over and above the synchronic failures of conjunctive closure. The argument for this, which can be viewed as a sequel to the preface paradox, is called the ‘review paradox'; it is presented in four distinct, but closely related versions

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,621

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-04-19

Downloads
115 (#198,218)

6 months
11 (#332,048)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Hannes Leitgeb
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München

Citations of this work

Four Approaches to Supposition.Benjamin Eva, Ted Shear & Branden Fitelson - 2022 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 8 (26):58-98.
Should agents be immodest?Marc-Kevin Daoust - 2020 - Analytic Philosophy 62 (3):235-251.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and belief.Jaakko Hintikka - 1962 - Ithaca, N.Y.,: Cornell University Press.
The aim of belief.Ralph Wedgwood - 2002 - Philosophical Perspectives 16:267-97.
The paradox of the preface.David Makinson - 1965 - Analysis 25 (6):205.
Vagueness in Context.Stewart Shapiro - 2006 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press UK.

View all 14 references / Add more references