A ground-breaking innovation in epistemology
Moss shows how the idea of probabilistic knowledge and belief illuminates issues in many areas of philosophy
Traditional philosophical discussions of knowledge have focused on the epistemic status of full beliefs. Sarah Moss argues that in addition to full beliefs, credences can constitute knowledge. For instance, your 0.4 credence that it is raining outside can constitute knowledge, in just the same way that your full beliefs can. In addition, you can know that it might be raining, and that if it is raining then it is probably cloudy, where this knowledge is not knowledge of propositions, but of probabilistic contents.
The notion of probabilistic content introduced in this book plays a central role not only in epistemology, but in the philosophy of mind and language as well. Just as tradition holds that you believe and assert propositions, you can believe and assert probabilistic contents. Accepting that we can believe, assert, and know probabilistic contents has significant consequences for many philosophical debates, including debates about the relationship between full belief and credence, the semantics of epistemic modals and conditionals, the contents of perceptual experience, peer disagreement, pragmatic encroachment, perceptual dogmatism, and transformative experience. In addition, accepting probabilistic knowledge can help us discredit negative evaluations of female speech, explain why merely statistical evidence is insufficient for legal proof, and identify epistemic norms violated by acts of racial profiling. Hence the central theses of this book not only help us better understand the nature of our own mental states, but also help us better understand the nature of our responsibilities to each other.
1 有用 Agilulfo 2023-02-22 18:44:12 上海
看完前四章本来想弃。这个probabilistic project在ling&lang上实在是不吸引我。看完我也没觉得,单就epistemic modals和indicatives而论,它相较于kratzer后来的改进版本有多大优势。真正打动人的是后续章节开始逐步把这个framework推进到traditional epis和phil of action(还有legal proofs!)。非常惊艳... 看完前四章本来想弃。这个probabilistic project在ling&lang上实在是不吸引我。看完我也没觉得,单就epistemic modals和indicatives而论,它相较于kratzer后来的改进版本有多大优势。真正打动人的是后续章节开始逐步把这个framework推进到traditional epis和phil of action(还有legal proofs!)。非常惊艳。考虑到绝大部分这类formal工作都不太可能在传统议题上change our mind。但这个例外,因为它推进的方式很扎实(factivity那节就是一个例子)。尽可能多地接受了传统的设定,这点出乎意料。 (展开)
2 有用 初繁言 2023-02-21 10:03:22 美国
补登记一下:野心勃勃的神作!抱了很高的期望,但还是处处收获惊喜。motivation和defense都很精彩。一直觉得sarah的写作有种化纷争于无形的强,从直觉到做分析到提供方案,再到绕回整个project的统一性,每个环节(并且涉及到的每个分领域)都既极具挑战性,又给出了足够有意思的答卷。听说sarah从开始学哲学起就想做这么一个project了。“如果我成为哲学家这辈子要写一本书,我该写成什... 补登记一下:野心勃勃的神作!抱了很高的期望,但还是处处收获惊喜。motivation和defense都很精彩。一直觉得sarah的写作有种化纷争于无形的强,从直觉到做分析到提供方案,再到绕回整个project的统一性,每个环节(并且涉及到的每个分领域)都既极具挑战性,又给出了足够有意思的答卷。听说sarah从开始学哲学起就想做这么一个project了。“如果我成为哲学家这辈子要写一本书,我该写成什么样”的典范。 (展开)
0 有用 Tibble 2025-02-16 15:22:24 四川
无他,唯力荐耳。 伴随着娱乐向美好阅读的结束,寒假也结束了😭