David Christensen

Preference-Based Arguments for Probabilism

Both Representation Theorem Arguments and Dutch Book Arguments support taking probabilistic coherence as an epistemic norm. Both depend on connecting beliefs to preferences, which are not clearly within the epistemic domain. Moreover, these connections are standardly grounded in questionable definitional/metaphysical claims. The paper argues that these definitional/metaphysical claims are insupportable. It offers a way of reconceiving Representation Theorem arguments which avoids the untenable premises. It then develops a parallel approach to Dutch Book Arguments, and compares the results. In each case preference-defects serve as a diagnostic tool, indicating purely epistemic defects.

Confirmational Holism and Bayesian Epistemology

Much contemporary epistemology is informed by a kind of confirmational holism, and a consequent rejection of the assumption that all confirmation rests on experiential certainties. Another prominent theme is that belief comes in degrees, and that rationality requires apportioning ones degrees of belief reasonably. Bayesian confirmation models based on Jeffrey Conditionalization attempt to bring together these two appealing strands. I argue, however, that these models cannot account for a certain aspect of confirmation that would be accounted for in any adequate holistic confirmation theory. I then survey the prospects for constructing a formal epistemology that better accommodates holistic insights.

Switched-words skepticism: a case study in semantical anti-skeptical argument

ConclusionSemantically based arguments play a crucial role in responding to a certain sort of skeptical strategy, a strategy that is widely generalizable, and which is otherwise peculiarly difficult to answer. The anti-skeptical arguments we have been studying do this while avoiding reliance on the insupportable linguistic claims of co-optionism. Instead, they rely on the prevalence of a certain plausible general feature of the semantics of our language. Not surprisingly, this epistemologically important feature is itself frankly epistemological: in essence, we must (typically) be able to tell what a word refers to, in a way independent of the beliefs we use the word to express. In addition to rendering valuable anti-skeptical service, then, the arguments we have been studying display an additional dimension of interest, for they help to illuminate the ways in which our knowledge of the world at large is bound up with our knowledge of a particular part of that world — the language we use to describe it.