Abstract
How should we respond to cases of disagreement where two epistemic agents have the same evidence but come to different conclusions? Adam Elga has provided a Bayesian framework for addressing this question. In this paper, I shall highlight two unfortunate consequences of this framework, which Elga does not anticipate. Both problems derive from a failure of commutativity between application of the equal weight view and updating in the light of other evidence.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 321-326 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Philosophical Studies |
Volume | 149 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 10 Mar 2009 |