Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Field II 297
Adams-Conditional/Sorites/Field: in Sorites, the generalized Adams conditional leads to all assumptions being highly credible, even for the clearest borderline cases. But the Sorites argument does not preserve the credibility in this reading.
>Conditional/Adams.
Probability function P/Field: from several different P, the same Q can be constructed, so P is not really important to describe the agent.
>Probability function, >Conditional probability.
Then one could say:
1. That Q is a fully legitimated belief function.
2. That P is not a legitimate belief function. This would be hard to justify if the process from P to Q could be repeated so that it provides a Q* that is different from Q, but that is not the case. If we define Q*(A) as Q(DA), then Q* is simply equal to Q. This is our reason for using S4.
>Systems S4/S5.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.