All evidentialist theories conform to (EVI), but various divergent theories of evidentialism can be formulated.
All evidentialist theories conform to (EVI), but various divergent theories of evidentialism can be formulated.Tags: Research Proposal In AccountingPros And Cons On Penalty EssayEssay On Muslim ScientistsPaper Proofreading TermPsychology Topics To Write AboutCase Study Of Rural And Social Entrepreneurship
One believes it of theory of epistemic justification; one can formulate various divergent evidentialist theories by providing different analyses of its constituent concepts. Evidence for or against p is, roughly, any information relevant to the truth or falsity of p.
The present section focuses on the central notion of evidence and explicates the various ways that one can restrict the sorts of things that count as evidence. This is why we think that fingerprints and DNA left at the scene of the crime, eye-witness testimony, and someone’s whereabouts at the time the crime was committed all count as evidence for or against the hypothesis that the suspect committed the crime.
(EVI) does not entail that whenever one has adequate evidence for p one believes p This is for two reasons.
First, one can be justified in believing p even if one fails to believe it.
justification, it is a thesis about what it takes for one to believe justifiably, or reasonably, in the sense thought to be necessary for knowledge.
Particular versions of evidentialism can diverge in virtue of their providing different claims about what sorts of things count as evidence, what it is for one to have evidence, and what it is for one’s evidence to support believing a proposition.Evidentialism is a theory of knowledge whose essence is the traditional idea that the justification of factual knowledge is entirely a matter of evidence.Earl Conee and Richard Feldman present the definitive exposition and defence of this much-contested theory.According to (EVI) only facts that one something in the relevant sense, one has to be aware of, to know about, or to, in some sense, “mentally possess” it.The sort of evidence the evidentialist is interested in, therefore, is restricted to mental entities (or, roughly, to mental “information”).One might believe it as a result of wishful thinking, for example.In such a case, the evidentialist holds that the person is justified in believing the proposition in question but, nevertheless, believes it unjustifiably. Together, these three sections illustrate the diversity of possible evidentialist theories.Traditional accounts have looked to one’s available evidence or reasons for an answer. Though this by no means settles the issue, it does provide reason to try to work out a theory of justification that appeals to evidence.Naturally, then, we see this traditional conception reflected in the writings of many influential philosophers. proportions his belief to the evidence,” and he proceeds with this as his epistemic ideal (73). in attaching to every proposition a degree of belief corresponding to its degree of credibility,” credibility functionally depending on evidence (397-398). The remainder of this entry turns toward a detailed consideration of the theory itself.Before proceeding, it is crucial to nail down more exactly what evidentialism is a theory of.As I have defined it in (EVI), evidentialism is the thesis that one is justified in believing a proposition at a time if and only if one’s evidence at that time supports believing that proposition.