A challenge to positive relevance theorists: Reply to Roush

Philosophy of Science 71 (4):521-524 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recently in this journal Sherrilyn Roush (2004) defends positive relevance as a necessary (albeit not a sufficient) condition for evidence by rejecting two of the counterexamples from my earlier (2001) work. In this reply I argue that Roush's critique is not successful.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1086/423629

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Does Roush show that evidence should be probable?Damien Fennell & Nancy Cartwright - 2010 - Synthese 175 (3):289 - 310.
Does Roush show that evidence should be probable?Damien Fennell & Nancy Cartwright - unknown
Does Roush show that evidence should be probable?Damien Fennell & Nancy Cartwright - 2009 - Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Knowledge Without Evidence.José L. Zalabardo - 2012 - In Scepticism and Reliable Belief. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press. pp. 111-143.
in Defense Of Positive Relevance: A Reply To Peter Achinstein.Aaron Kenna - 2011 - Florida Philosophical Review 11 (1):26-35.
Recursive tracking versus process reliabilism.Alvin I. Goldman - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (1):223-230.
Evidence and Leverage: Comment on Roush. [REVIEW]Eric Christian Barnes - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):549-557.
Discussion note: Positive relevance defended.Sherrilyn Roush† - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (1):110-116.
Review of Sherrilyn Roush, Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence and Science. [REVIEW]Horacio Arló-Costa - 2006 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2006 (7).
No Closure on Skepticism.Anthony Brueckner Yuval Avnur - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (4):439-447.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
198 (#203,934)

6 months
16 (#712,980)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Photo of Peter Achinstein
Peter Achinstein
Johns Hopkins University

Citations of this work

Reasons and evidence one ought.John Brunero - 2009 - Ethics 119 (3):538-545.
Is Evidential Support the Same as Increase-in-Probability?Tamaz Tokhadze - 2022 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 99 (2):135–158.
Are reasons evidence of oughts?Franck Lihoreau - 2012 - Logos and Episteme 3 (1):153-160.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The book of evidence.Peter Achinstein - 2001 - New York: Oxford University Press.

Add more references