The orgulity objection of Belot (2013) is recast in the form of a decision problem.

A piece of folklore enjoys some currency among philosophical Bayesians, according to which Bayesian agents that, intuitively speaking, spread their credence over the entire space of available hypotheses are certain to converge to the truth. The goals of the present discussion are to show that kernel of truth in this folklore is in some ways fairly small and to argue that Bayesian convergence-to-the-truth results are a liability for Bayesianism as an account of rationality, since they render a certain sort of (...) arrogance rationally mandatory. (shrink)

This essay has two aims. The first is to correct an increasingly popular way of misunderstanding Belot's Orgulity Argument. The Orgulity Argument charges Bayesianism with defect as a normative epistemology. For concreteness, our argument focuses on Cisewski et al.'s recent rejoinder to Belot. The conditions that underwrite their version of the argument are too strong and Belot does not endorse them on our reading. A more compelling version of the Orgulity Argument than Cisewski et al. present is (...) available, however---a point that we make by drawing an analogy with de Finetti's argument against mandating countable additivity. Having presented the best version of the Orgulity Argument, our second aim is to develop a reply to it. We extend Elga's idea of appealing to finitely additive probability to show that the challenge posed by the Orgulity Argument can be met. (shrink)

Say that an agent is "epistemically humble" if she is less than certain that her opinions will converge to the truth, given an appropriate stream of evidence. Is such humility rationally permissible? According to the orgulity argument : the answer is "yes" but long-run convergence-to-the-truth theorems force Bayesians to answer "no." That argument has no force against Bayesians who reject countable additivity as a requirement of rationality. Such Bayesians are free to count even extreme humility as rationally permissible.

This article develops an axiomatic theory of induction that speaks to the recent debate on Bayesian orgulity. It shows the exact principles associated with the belief that data can corroborate universal laws. We identify two types of disbelief about induction: skepticism that the existence of universal laws of nature can be determined empirically, and skepticism that the true law of nature, if it exists, can be successfully identified. We formalize and characterize these two dispositions toward induction by introducing novel (...) axioms for subjective probabilities. We also relate these dispositions to the axiom of σ-additivity. (shrink)

Sovint el humans ens hem somiat déus. I Déu n'hi do si hem fet coses admirables: ciència, organització social, art,...motius n'hi ha per estar orgullosos. La vida, però, també ens mostra amb insistència la cara més fosca de nosaltres mateixos, i en aquests moments el més fàcil és passar de l'orgull a la desesperança més absoluta. El camí, però, no pot ser el de l'abandonament. Ni déus ni bèsties! Els déus no trien i, sense esforç ni dubtes, coneixen i realitzen (...) sempre el millor. Els animals, empresonats en la seva naturalesa, tampoc no trenquen gaire el cap a decidir què faran amb les seves vides. Nosaltres no tenim la sort dels uns ni la dels altres, i ens toca amb feines i treballs anar bastint la nostra realitat, aquella que nosaltres farem. Per això existeix l'ètica. "Coneix-te a tu mateix", ordenava l'oracle: només amb les nostres llums i amb les nostres ombres, amb l'instint, amb la ràbia, amb el sentiment, amb la paraula, amb la raó; només coneixent i assumint tot allò que som, tindrem la possibilitat, tal vegada, de construir un món més humà. (shrink)