The Review Paradox: On The Diachronic Costs of Not Closing Rational Belief Under Conjunction

Noûs 48 (4):781-793 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We argue that giving up on the closure of rational belief under conjunction comes with a substantial price. Either rational belief is closed under conjunction, or else the epistemology of belief has a serious diachronic deficit over and above the synchronic failures of conjunctive closure. The argument for this, which can be viewed as a sequel to the preface paradox, is called the ‘review paradox'; it is presented in four distinct, but closely related versions

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,314

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-04-19

Downloads
115 (#198,136)

6 months
11 (#332,132)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Hannes Leitgeb
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München

Citations of this work

Four Approaches to Supposition.Benjamin Eva, Ted Shear & Branden Fitelson - 2022 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 8 (26):58-98.
Should agents be immodest?Marc-Kevin Daoust - 2020 - Analytic Philosophy 62 (3):235-251.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Knowledge and belief.Jaakko Hintikka - 1962 - Ithaca, N.Y.,: Cornell University Press.
The aim of belief.Ralph Wedgwood - 2002 - Philosophical Perspectives 16:267-97.
The paradox of the preface.David Makinson - 1965 - Analysis 25 (6):205.
Vagueness in Context.Stewart Shapiro - 2006 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press UK.

View all 14 references / Add more references