Bias Defended
In this paper, I clarify and defend some of the central ideas of Bias in response to commentators, with a special focus on the theme of skepticism. In response to Michael Veber, I defend the project of offering a modest as opposed to an ambitious response to the skeptic. In response to Jonathan Math...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
Published: |
2024
|
In: |
International journal for the study of skepticism
Year: 2024, Volume: 14, Issue: 3, Pages: 234-258 |
Further subjects: | B
biased knowing
B bias attributions B emergent bias B epistemology of disagreement B suspension of judgment B Skepticism B Knowledge B Test bias |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | In this paper, I clarify and defend some of the central ideas of Bias in response to commentators, with a special focus on the theme of skepticism. In response to Michael Veber, I defend the project of offering a modest as opposed to an ambitious response to the skeptic. In response to Jonathan Matheson, I defend my account of the way in which bias attributions function in contexts of interpersonal disagreement, as well as the claim that an unbiased believer will generally be in a stronger position to resist skeptical pressure from disagreement than a biased believer. In response to Brett Sherman, I clarify the way in which my account of bias accommodates the phenomenon of biased suspension of judgment, and I explore some of the connections between bias, suspension of judgment, and skepticism. In response to Jared Celinker and Nathan Ballantyne, I defend the possibility of emergent biases. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2210-5700 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal for the study of skepticism
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/22105700-bja10089 |