Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWhite, Roger
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-27T14:17:00Z
dc.date.available2023-02-27T14:17:00Z
dc.date.issued2023-02-20
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/148223
dc.description.abstractAbstract Among other interesting proposals, Juan Comesaña’s Being Rational and Being Right makes a challenging case that one’s evidence can include falsehoods. I explore some ways in which we might have to rethink the roles that evidence can play in inquiry if we accept this claim. It turns out that Comesaña’s position lends itself to the conclusion that while false evidence is possible and not even terribly uncommon, I can be rationally sure that I don’t currently have any and perhaps also that I won’t get any, and (absent certain evidence to the contrary) you are not afflicted with any either. This conclusion might seem too good to be true. I finish by raising a puzzle about one of the main motivations for Comesaña’s view.en_US
dc.publisherSpringer Netherlandsen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-023-01919-5en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attributionen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceSpringer Netherlandsen_US
dc.titleEvidence and truthen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationWhite, Roger. 2023. "Evidence and truth."
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophyen_US
dc.identifier.mitlicensePUBLISHER_CC
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2023-02-26T04:14:57Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dspace.embargo.termsN
dspace.date.submission2023-02-26T04:14:57Z
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusAuthority Work and Publication Information Neededen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record