green numbers give full details | back to texts | unexpand these ideas
| 19518 | Evidentialism says justifications supervene on the available evidence |
| Full Idea: Fundamentally Evidentialism is a supervenience thesis, according to which facts about whether or not a person is justified in believing a proposition supervene on facts describing the evidence the person has. | |||
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Introduction to 'Evidentialism' [2004], p.1) | |||
| A reaction: If facts 'describe', does that make them linguistic? That's not how I use 'facts'. A statement of a fact is not the same as the fact. An ugly fact can be beautifully expressed. I am, however, in favour of evidence. |
| 19519 | Rational decisions are either taken to be based on evidence, or to be explained causally |
| Full Idea: In decision theory, there is a view according to which the rational basis for all decisions is evidential. This kind of decision theory is typically contrasted with causal decision theory. | |||
| From: E Conee / R Feldman (Introduction to 'Evidentialism' [2004], p.3) | |||
| A reaction: Your Kantian presumably likes rational reflection on evidence, and your modern reductive scientist prefers causality (which doesn't really sound very rational). |