tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post1090553251098365554..comments2024-03-28T13:40:26.497+00:00Comments on M-Phi: More on the Principal Principle and the Principle of IndifferenceJeffrey Ketlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01753975411670884721noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-51127469695434003342021-01-22T14:47:29.772+00:002021-01-22T14:47:29.772+00:00People in Czech Republic speak the Czech language....People in Czech Republic speak the Czech language. The linguistic diversity of Czech Republic is diverse according to a fractionalization scale which for Czech Republic is 0.3233. The followers of Christianity are the religious majority in the country. 73.4% of Czech Republic's population live in cities. http://www.confiduss.com/en/jurisdictions/czech-republic/culture/Bextolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00468858339605247006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-27191220247743385072018-08-22T08:57:01.087+01:002018-08-22T08:57:01.087+01:00Thank you for posting such topics. Thanks for the ...Thank you for posting such topics. Thanks for the information your article brings.<br /><a href="http://sw11clinic-clapham.co.uk/cherry-services/dentista-italiano-a-londra-italian-dential-clinic-in-clapham-junction/" rel="nofollow">Italian Dental Clinic In Clapham Junction</a><br />sw11clinichttp://sw11clinic-clapham.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-48368539754788808292017-09-25T08:15:03.871+01:002017-09-25T08:15:03.871+01:00An article are a few things by that you just will ...An article are a few things by that you just will categorical your thinking to audience. By that you just will share what you recognize, your expertise regarding one thing, your hobby, what you wish or dislike and plenty of additional. however once it involves your profession it's very little completely different from expressing yourself. <a href="http://www.informalessaywriting.com/why-us/" rel="nofollow">write informal essay for me</a>Thomas Venneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10806971416198629441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-75795986209328836712017-09-15T05:30:55.783+01:002017-09-15T05:30:55.783+01:00Teachers should give tasks to the students to perf...Teachers should give tasks to the students to perform in class. They should give them something for writing and check every student how they are doing. They must check their level of understanding instead of asking the problem in writing.personal statements writing serviceshttp://www.personalstatementwriter.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-51428199632373658582017-09-03T17:43:47.532+01:002017-09-03T17:43:47.532+01:00from the best course of actions every students sho...from the best course of actions every students should obey the educational planning to find out the best options to all. no matter how hard the situation are the entire way out is the ideal methods to implement in the situation.correct run on sentences onlinehttp://www.sentencechecker.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-63498257941995568742017-08-18T07:19:19.791+01:002017-08-18T07:19:19.791+01:00To teach legitimately it is basic that understudie...To teach legitimately it is basic that understudies must create acumen in etymological, numerical and explanatory abilities. They should ace all ranges with energy and eagerness so wagers comes about are created.<a href="https://www.litreview.net/a-good-literature-review-outline-example/" rel="nofollow">visit the site</a> <br />Royhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08337556274027654584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-32508981356431867812017-07-12T11:28:39.281+01:002017-07-12T11:28:39.281+01:00There may well be other sorts of strong evidence. ...There may well be other sorts of strong evidence. For instance, perceptual evidence might provide strong enough evidence to get the argument going. I might, for instance, be performing an autopsy on an animal and see that it has a heart. <a href="http://www.examhelp.net/comprehensive-exam-help/" rel="nofollow">click here</a><br />aliyaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184256288293330921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-76487458630660986952017-04-27T16:50:05.147+01:002017-04-27T16:50:05.147+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996310755622883923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-62185430284473673622017-02-03T17:45:11.077+00:002017-02-03T17:45:11.077+00:00Hi Richard, thanks for your thoughts on this.
I t...Hi Richard, thanks for your thoughts on this.<br /><br />I think Condition 2 is a condition that needs to hold if PP is to capture our everyday standards of reasonableness. The inadmissible propositions are those that block an application of PP. Intuitively, learning B<->C shouldn't block an application of PP when (i) your other evidence doesn't tell you about C, and (ii) C itself is so simple that you can't infer anything about its probability from its structure. <br /><br />So I'd endorse condition 2 just on the grounds of its intuitive plausibility, and the fact that any practical implementation of PP is going to need plenty of admissible propositions (PP can only apply at all when evidence other than the chance proposition is admissible). <br /><br />I think you're quite right that restricting condition 2 to atomic propositions on the basis that they are true at half the worlds would be question begging. Perhaps, if some complex C is true at relatively few worlds then that fact alone might be grounds to doubt whether B<->C is admissible. Condition 2 leaves open that possibility. But we don't argue that condition 2 is true because atomic C is true at half the worlds.<br /><br />I hope that helps a bit!Jon Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497890510605271093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-21475473422598559412017-01-27T10:11:20.182+00:002017-01-27T10:11:20.182+00:00Another quick question: Obviously the objection at...Another quick question: Obviously the objection at the end of the post can be run just as easily against Condition 2 itself. Since Condition 2 conflicts with Probabilism unless you restrict to atomic propositions, what do you think of the objection to Condition 2 that restricting to atomic propositions on the basis that they are true at half the worlds is question begging?Richard Pettigrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828399117450825734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-17349143189091252812017-01-27T10:08:50.715+00:002017-01-27T10:08:50.715+00:00Thanks for this, Jon. Sorry for the further misund...Thanks for this, Jon. Sorry for the further misunderstanding -- I had understood from Christian that this is how you were thinking of Condition 2. So if not, I think I'm just not understanding where you're getting Condition 2 from. Initially, I thought you understood it as something that should fall out of the correct account of admissibility. Then I thought you understood it as falling out of an intuition based on how you should respond to a biconditional $B \leftrightarrow C$ when you have strong evidence that supports your prior credence in $B$, but no relevant evidence concerning $C$. But if it's neither of these things, what is the motivation for Condition 2? What's so special about a biconditional $B \leftrightarrow C$ such that your credence in $B$ should remain untouched when you learn that biconditional, if it isn't a fact about admissibility or about the weight of evidence you have concerning $B$ and $C$?Richard Pettigrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828399117450825734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-59078869220579219992017-01-27T09:56:20.863+00:002017-01-27T09:56:20.863+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard Pettigrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828399117450825734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-22952187063712983662017-01-26T17:59:34.263+00:002017-01-26T17:59:34.263+00:00Thanks Richard,
"the plausibility of the HLW...Thanks Richard,<br /><br />"the plausibility of the HLWW argument turns on the plausibility of (Ev1) and (Ev2)"<br />Just to make clear, we don't assume Ev1 and Ev2 and we don't motivate our condition 2 (c.f., your III) in terms of Ev1 and Ev2. <br /><br />Your new argument seems to have this form:<br />(Ev1 & Ev2) -> III<br />~(Ev1 & Ev2)<br />____________<br />~III<br /><br />This is of course fallacious! I think our condition 2 stands on its own merits and doesn't need Ev1 or Ev2 to motivate it.<br /><br />cheers, JonJon Williamsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497890510605271093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-32204087435815842842017-01-22T08:38:44.566+00:002017-01-22T08:38:44.566+00:00Thanks, Leszek! On the reading of the argument of ...Thanks, Leszek! On the reading of the argument of the paper: I think I had originally interpreted the core intuitions about defeat as being adequacy conditions for a notion of admissibility, not further conditions that HLWW wish to impose even if they are not entailed by the account of admissibility. But I think the authors do read it in this second way.<br /><br />I agree that the Principal Principle is inessential. That's why I was keen to spell out the argument using only (Ev1) and (Ev2), since they do not appeal to the Principal Principle, only to strong evidence concerning a proposition. According to the Principal Principle, propositions about the chance provide that sort of strong evidence; and according to other principles of deference to experts, other propositions concerning the opinion of experts will count as strong evidence. But there may well be other sorts of strong evidence. For instance, perceptual evidence might provide strong enough evidence to get the argument going. I might, for instance, be performing an autopsy on an animal and see that it has a heart. Thus, I have very strong evidence that it has a heart. Perhaps that evidence compels me to have credence 0.98 that it has a heart, since my ability to identify hearts in autopsies is 98%. But I might have no evidence at all whether it has a kidney. But then someone tells me that the animal has a heart iff it has a kidney. Then again we have the intuition that I should retain my credence of 0.98 that the animal has a heart and bring my credence that it has a kidney into line with this.Richard Pettigrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07828399117450825734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-65355539544110382122017-01-21T10:23:44.353+00:002017-01-21T10:23:44.353+00:00BTW, it's Leszek Wronski here, I have no idea ...BTW, it's Leszek Wronski here, I have no idea why the name says 'Luke101'. Anyway, the missing quote above is "core intuitions about defeat" (quoting the HLWW paper).Luke101https://www.blogger.com/profile/12310985619542968881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4987609114415205593.post-66557310863305157162017-01-21T10:22:43.462+00:002017-01-21T10:22:43.462+00:00I just wanted to say that I read the HLWW argument...I just wanted to say that I read the HLWW argument as "the Principal Principle implies Principle of Indifference, if we assume certain two conditions which are to be independently argued for, and supposedly capture our <>". In this paper: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12761/ with Balazs Gyenis we argue against that argument; that is, 1) the main theorem seems not to have much to do with the Principal Principle (since it is an implication between a set of independence statements and an independence statement, and no (credences about) chances need to be invoked) and 2) the Conditions are not sustainable anyway without some further assumptions (we provide a counterexample).Luke101https://www.blogger.com/profile/12310985619542968881noreply@blogger.com