Plantinga and the Bayesian justification of beliefs
This article intends to show that Plantinga’s criticism against Bayesianism as an account of what is involved in rationality does not apply to all forms of Bayesianism. Swinburne’s version, based on a logical theory of probability, is an example of Bayesianism not hit by Plantinga’s criticism. In ad...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2012 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) |
| Repositorio: | Veritas (Porto Alegre. Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br:article/11923 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/veritas/article/view/11923 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | Plantinga. Bayesianism. Induction. Cumulative case.Dwindling probability. Swinburne. Plantinga Bayesianismo. Indução. Argumento cumulativo. Probabilidade decrescente. Swinburne. Ciências Humanas Filosofia Epistemologia |
| Resumo: | This article intends to show that Plantinga’s criticism against Bayesianism as an account of what is involved in rationality does not apply to all forms of Bayesianism. Swinburne’s version, based on a logical theory of probability, is an example of Bayesianism not hit by Plantinga’s criticism. In addition, the article argues that the problem of dwindling probabilities – pointed out by Plantinga in Warranted Christian Belief (2000) – vanishes in a Bayesian approach. So, even if it is not a sufficient account of rationality, Bayesianism helps to understand important elements of inductive reasoning, especially those relative to cumulative cases. |
|---|