Abstract
Conditionalization is one of the central norms of Bayesian epistemology. But there are a number of competing formulations, and a number of arguments that purport to establish it. In this paper, I explore which formulations of the norm are supported by which arguments. In their standard formulations, each of the arguments I consider here depends on the same assumption, which I call Deterministic Updating. I will investigate whether it is possible to amend these arguments so that they no longer depend on it. As I show, whether this is possible depends on the formulation of the norm under consideration.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-37 |
Number of pages | 37 |
Journal | Philosophical Studies |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 27 Nov 2019 |