Information versus knowledge in confirmation theory

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

I argue that so-called 'background knowledge' in confirmation theory has little, if anything, to do with 'knowledge' in the sense of mainstream epistemology. I argue that it is better construed as 'background information', which need not be believed in, justified, or true.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)137-149
Number of pages13
JournalLogique et Analyse
Volume226
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Information Needs
Background Knowledge
Confirmation Theory
Epistemology

Cite this

@article{2d3d394ea3524ef081b2a0ae5bc221cf,
title = "Information versus knowledge in confirmation theory",
abstract = "I argue that so-called 'background knowledge' in confirmation theory has little, if anything, to do with 'knowledge' in the sense of mainstream epistemology. I argue that it is better construed as 'background information', which need not be believed in, justified, or true.",
author = "ROWBOTTOM, {Darrell P.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.2143/LEA.226.0.3032652",
language = "English",
volume = "226",
pages = "137--149",
journal = "Logique et Analyse",
issn = "0024-5836",
publisher = "Nationaal Centrum voor Navorsingen in de Logica (Centre National Belge de Recherche de Logique)",

}

Information versus knowledge in confirmation theory. / ROWBOTTOM, Darrell P.

In: Logique et Analyse, Vol. 226, 2014, p. 137-149.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - Information versus knowledge in confirmation theory

AU - ROWBOTTOM, Darrell P.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - I argue that so-called 'background knowledge' in confirmation theory has little, if anything, to do with 'knowledge' in the sense of mainstream epistemology. I argue that it is better construed as 'background information', which need not be believed in, justified, or true.

AB - I argue that so-called 'background knowledge' in confirmation theory has little, if anything, to do with 'knowledge' in the sense of mainstream epistemology. I argue that it is better construed as 'background information', which need not be believed in, justified, or true.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2582

U2 - 10.2143/LEA.226.0.3032652

DO - 10.2143/LEA.226.0.3032652

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 226

SP - 137

EP - 149

JO - Logique et Analyse

JF - Logique et Analyse

SN - 0024-5836

ER -