Abstract
Colin Howson (1995) offers a counter-example to the rule of conditionalization. I will argue that the counter-example doesn't hit its target. The problem is that Howson mis-describes the total evidence the agent has. In particular, Howson overlooks how the restriction that the agent learn ‘E and nothing else’ interacts with the de se evidence ‘I have learnt E’.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
