This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.

Confirmation

Related categories
Subcategories:
358 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 100 / 358
Material to categorize
  1. Brad Abernethy (1987). Glymour on Bootstrap Confirmation of Ptolemaic Theory. Philosophy of Science 54 (3):473-479.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  2. Peter Achinstein (1963). Confirmation Theory, Order, and Periodicity. Philosophy of Science 30 (1):17-35.
    This paper examines problems of order and periodicity which arise when the attempt is made to define a confirmation function for a language containing elementary number theory as applied to a universe in which the individuals are considered to be arranged in some fixed order. Certain plausible conditions of adequacy are stated for such a confirmation function. By the construction of certain types of predicates, it is proved, however, that these conditions of adequacy are violated by any confirmation function defined (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  3. Peter Achinstein (1963). Variety and Analogy in Confirmation Theory. Philosophy of Science 30 (3):207-221.
    Confirmation theorists seek to define a function that will take into account the various factors relevant in determining the degree to which an hypothesis is confirmed by its evidence. Among confirmation theorists, only Rudolf Carnap has constructed a system which purports to consider factors in addition to the number of instances, viz. the variety manifested by the instances and the amount of analogy between the instances. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the problem which these additional factors (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  4. Robert Ackermann (1969). Sortal Predicates and Confirmation. Philosophical Studies 20 (1-2):1 - 4.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  5. Jonathan E. Adler (1990). Conservatism and Tacit Confirmation. Mind 99 (396):559-570.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  6. H. G. Alexander (1959). The Paradoxes of Confirmation--A Reply to Dr Agassi. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (39):229-234.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  7. H. G. Alexander (1958). The Paradoxes of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9 (35):227-233.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  8. David Atkinson (2012). Confirmation and Justification. A Commentary on Shogenji's Measure. Synthese 184 (1):49-61.
    So far no known measure of confirmation of a hypothesis by evidence has satisfied a minimal requirement concerning thresholds of acceptance. In contrast, Shogenji’s new measure of justification (Shogenji, Synthese, this number 2009) does the trick. As we show, it is ordinally equivalent to the most general measure which satisfies this requirement. We further demonstrate that this general measure resolves the problem of the irrelevant conjunction. Finally, we spell out some implications of the general measure for the Conjunction Effect; in (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  9. David Atkinson, Jeanne Peijnenburg & Theo Kuipers, How to Confirm the Disconfirmed. On Conjunction Fallacies and Robust Confirmation.
    Can some evidence confirm a conjunction of two hypotheses more than it confirms either of the hypotheses separately? We show that it can, moreover under conditions that are the same for nine different measures of confirmation. Further we demonstrate that it is even possible for the conjunction of two disconfirmed hypotheses to be confirmed by the same evidence.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  10. Joseph L. Austerweil & Thomas L. Griffiths (2011). Seeking Confirmation Is Rational for Deterministic Hypotheses. Cognitive Science 35 (3):499-526.
    The tendency to test outcomes that are predicted by our current theory (the confirmation bias) is one of the best-known biases of human decision making. We prove that the confirmation bias is an optimal strategy for testing hypotheses when those hypotheses are deterministic, each making a single prediction about the next event in a sequence. Our proof applies for two normative standards commonly used for evaluating hypothesis testing: maximizing expected information gain and maximizing the probability of falsifying the current hypothesis. (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  11. Patricia Baillie (1973). Confirmation and the Dutch Book Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):393-397.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  12. Patricia Baillie (1971). Confirmation and Probability: A Reply to Settle. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):285-286.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  13. Patricia Baillie (1969). That Confirmation May yet Be a Probability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):41-51.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  14. Sorin Bangu (2006). Underdetermination and the Argument From Indirect Confirmation. Ratio 19 (3):269–277.
    In this paper I criticize one of the most convincing recent attempts to resist the underdetermination thesis, Laudan’s argument from indirect confirmation. Laudan highlights and rejects a tacit assumption of the underdetermination theorist, namely that theories can be confirmed only by empirical evidence that follows from them. He shows that once we accept that theories can also be confirmed indirectly, by evidence not entailed by them, the skeptical conclusion does not follow. I agree that Laudan is right to reject this (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: interscience.wiley.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  15. Y. Bar-hillel (1956). Content and Degreb of Confirmation: Further Comments on Probability and Confirmation a Rejoinder to Professor Popper. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7 (27):245-248.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  16. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (1956). Further Comments on Probability and Confirmation: A Rejoinder to Professor Popper. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7 (27):245-248.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  17. Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (1955). Comments on 'Degree of Confirmation' by Professor K. R. Popper. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6 (22):155-157.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  18. William H. Baumer (1968). Confirmation Still Without Paradoxes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):57-63.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  19. William H. Baumer (1964). Confirmation Without Paradoxes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15 (59):177-195.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  20. Charles A. Baylis (1952). The Confirmation of Value Judgments. Philosophical Review 61 (1):50-58.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  21. Michael Beaney, Presuppositions and the Paradoxes of Confirmation.
    In his discussion of the paradox of the ravens,1 Mark Sainsbury takes the paradox to show the falsity of the following principle: G1. A generalisation is confirmed by any of its instances. The other possibilities, he argues, are to accept the paradoxical conclusion, or to reject the other principle involved.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  22. Darren Bradley (2011). Confirmation in a Branching World: The Everett Interpretation and Sleeping Beauty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (2):323-342.
    Sometimes we learn what the world is like, and sometimes we learn where in the world we are. Are there any interesting differences between the two kinds of cases? The main aim of this article is to argue that learning where we are in the world brings into view the same kind of observation selection effects that operate when sampling from a population. I will first explain what observation selection effects are ( Section 1 ) and how they are relevant (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: sites.google.com bjps.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  23. Darren Bradley & Branden Fitelson (2003). Monty Hall, Doomsday and Confirmation. Analysis 63 (277):23–31.
    In sum, then, Chalmers’s attempt to argue against physicalism based on the conceivability of zombies misses the mark. His version of conceivability does indeed imply possibility, but at the cost of making it unclear whether zombies are indeed conceivable.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: interscience.wiley.com blackwell-synergy.com faculty.arts.ubc.ca jstor.org analysis.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  24. Darren Bradley & Branden Fitelson (2003). Monty Hall, Doomsday and Confirmation. Analysis 63 (1):23-31.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com jstor.org analysis.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  25. Ingo Brigandt (2011). Critical Notice of Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science by Elliott Sober, Cambridge University of Press, 2008. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41:159–186.
    This essay discusses Elliott Sober’s Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Valuable to both philosophers and biologists, Sober analyzes the testing of different kinds of evolutionary hypotheses about natural selection or phylogenetic history, including a thorough critique of intelligent design. Not at least because of a discussion of different schools of hypothesis testing (Bayesianism, likelihoodism, and frequentism), with Sober favoring a pluralism where different inference methods are appropriate in different empirical contexts, the book has lessons for philosophy of (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: muse.jhu.edu   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  26. Ingo Brigandt (2010). Scientific Reasoning Is Material Inference: Combining Confirmation, Discovery, and Explanation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (1):31-43.
    Whereas an inference (deductive as well as inductive) is usually viewed as being valid in virtue of its argument form, the present paper argues that scientific reasoning is material inference, i.e., justified in virtue of its content. A material inference is licensed by the empirical content embodied in the concepts contained in the premises and conclusion. Understanding scientific reasoning as material inference has the advantage of combining different aspects of scientific reasoning, such as confirmation, discovery, and explanation. This approach explains (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: ualberta.ca philsci-archive.pitt.edu informaworld.com tandf.informaworld.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  27. B. A. Brody (1968). Confirmation and Explanation. Journal of Philosophy 65 (10):282-299.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  28. Baruch Brody (1974). More Confirmation and Explanation. Philosophical Studies 26 (1):73 - 75.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  29. David J. Buller (1993). Confirmation and the Computational Paradigm, or, Why Do You Think They Call It Artificial Intelligence? Minds and Machines 3 (2):155-81.
    The idea that human cognitive capacities are explainable by computational models is often conjoined with the idea that, while the states postulated by such models are in fact realized by brain states, there are no type-type correlations between the states postulated by computational models and brain states (a corollary of token physicalism). I argue that these ideas are not jointly tenable. I discuss the kinds of empirical evidence available to cognitive scientists for (dis)confirming computational models of cognition and argue that (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com cogprints.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  30. Richard M. Burian (1992). Book Review:The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory Elisabeth A. Lloyd. Philosophy of Science 59 (1):153-.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  31. Richmond Campbell (1990). Book Review:Fact and Method: Explanation, Confirmation, and Reality in the Natural and Social Sciences. Richard W. Miller. Ethics 100 (4):897-.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  32. Richmond Campbell & Thomas Vinci (1983). Novel Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (4):315-341.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  33. Rudolf Carmap (1956). Content and Degreb of Confirmation: Remarks on Popper's Note on Content and Degree of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7 (27):243-244.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  34. Rudolf Carnap (1956). Remarks on Popper's Note on Content and Degree of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7 (27):243-244.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  35. Rudolf Carnap (1953). On the Comparative Concept of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3 (12):311-318.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  36. Lin Chao-Tien (1978). Solutions to the Paradoxes of Confirmation, Goodman's Paradox, and Two New Theories of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 45 (3):415-419.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  37. David Christensen (1997). What is Relative Confirmation? Noûs 31 (3):370-384.
    It is commonly acknowledged that, in order to test a theoretical hypothesis, one must, in Duhem' s phrase, rely on a "theoretical scaffolding" to connect the hypothesis with something measurable. Hypothesis-confirmation, on this view, becomes a three-place relation: evidence E will confirm hypothesis H only relative to some such scaffolding B. Thus the two leading logical approaches to qualitative confirmation--the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) account and Clark Glymour' s bootstrap account--analyze confirmation in relative terms. But this raises questions about the philosophical interpretation (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: blackwell-synergy.com jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  38. F. M. Christensen (1998). Hypothesis Confirmation is Induction by Enumeration. Philosophia 26 (1-2):79-103.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  39. José Alberto Coffa (1970). Two Remarks on Hempel's Logic of Confirmation. Mind 79 (316):591-596.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  40. L. Jonathan Cohen (1966). What has Confirmation to Do with Probabilities? Mind 75 (300):463-481.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  41. H. Collins (1994). A Strong Confirmation of the Experimenters' Regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (3):493-503.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  42. Mark Colyvan (1999). Confirmation Theory and Indispensability. Philosophical Studies 96 (1):1-19.
    In this paper I examine Quine''s indispensability argument, with particular emphasis on what is meant by ''indispensable''. I show that confirmation theory plays a crucial role in answering this question and that once indispensability is understood in this light, Quine''s argument is seen to be a serious stumbling block for any scientific realist wishing to maintain an anti-realist position with regard to mathematical entities.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  43. Vincenzo Crupi, Branden Fitelson & Katya Tentori (2008). Probability, Confirmation, and the Conjunction Fallacy. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):182 – 199.
    The conjunction fallacy has been a key topic in debates on the rationality of human reasoning and its limitations. Despite extensive inquiry, however, the attempt to provide a satisfactory account of the phenomenon has proved challenging. Here we elaborate the suggestion (first discussed by Sides, Osherson, Bonini, & Viale, 2002) that in standard conjunction problems the fallacious probability judgements observed experimentally are typically guided by sound assessments of _confirmation_ relations, meant in terms of contemporary Bayesian confirmation theory. Our main formal (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  44. Zbigniew Czerwiński (1960). Degree of Confirmation and Critical Region. Studia Logica 10 (1):119 - 122.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  45. Jared Darlington (1959). On the Confirmation of Laws. Philosophy of Science 26 (1):14-24.
    The author discusses some difficulties involved in the application of "degree of confirmation" to the confirmation of lawlike-statements. An alternative analysis is proposed, which is based on interval estimation. It is argued that this analysis is superior to the criticized method, in that it is better able to show how instantial confirmations are inductively relevant to a law, and in that it requires fewer undesirable extra-logical assumptions.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  46. Harald Dickson (1990). Evidential Support and Undermining: Revision of Håkan Törnebohm's Theory of Confirmation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21 (1):163-182.
    In 1975, 'An Essay on Knowledge Formation' by H. Törnebohm was published in this Journal. Its content in revised form was included in a work in Swedish of 1983 on knowledge development. HT defines his confirmation criterion in terms of a measure of truth degree T, which is based on a measure of matching M, which is also used as a measure of the degree to which proposition p (an hypothesis) is supported or undermined by another proposition q (the evidence (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  47. Aysel Dogan (2005). Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):243 - 259.
    In spite of several attempts to explicate the relationship between a scientific hypothesis and evidence, the issue still cries for a satisfactory solution. Logical approaches to confirmation, such as the hypothetico-deductive method and the positive instance account of confirmation, are problematic because of their neglect of the semantic dimension of hypothesis confirmation. Probabilistic accounts of confirmation are no better than logical approaches in this regard. An outstanding probabilistic account of confirmation, the Bayesian approach, for instance, is found to be defective (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  48. Igor Douven & Wouter Meijs (2006). Bootstrap Confirmation Made Quantitative. Synthese 149 (1):97 - 132.
    Glymour’s theory of bootstrap confirmation is a purely qualitative account of confirmation; it allows us to say that the evidence confirms a given theory, but not that it confirms the theory to a certain degree. The present paper extends Glymour’s theory to a quantitative account and investigates the resulting theory in some detail. It also considers the question how bootstrap confirmation relates to justification.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  49. Xinguo Dun (2007). Queries on Hempel's Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (1):131-139.
    To solve the highly counterintuitive paradox of confirmation represented by the statement, “A pair of red shoes confirms that all ravens are black,” Hempel employed a strategy that retained the equivalence condition but abandoned Nicod’s irrelevance condition. However, his use of the equivalence condition is fairly ad hoc, raising doubts about its applicability to this problem. Furthermore, applying the irrelevance condition from Nicod’s criterion does not necessarily lead to paradoxes, nor does discarding it prevent the emergence of paradoxes. Hempel’s approach (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  50. Gordon R. Eastwood (1967). Confirmation and Null Hypotheses. Educational Theory 17 (2):120-126.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  51. Aron Edidin (1988). From Relative Confirmation to Real Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):265-271.
    Recent work on the logical theory of confirmation has centered on accounts of the confirmation of hypotheses relative to auxiliary assumptions or background theory. Whether such relative confirmation actually increases the credibility of the (relatively) confirmed hypothesis will depend in various ways on the epistemic status of the auxiliaries involved. Most obviously, if the auxiliaries are not themselves credible, confirmation relative to them will not increase the credibility of the hypothesis thus confirmed. A complete theory of confirmation must thus combine (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  52. Aron Edidin (1981). Glymour on Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 48 (2):292-307.
    Glymour has developed an account of the confirmation of scientific hypotheses which he advocates as an alternative to the hypothetico-deductive and Bayesian accounts. This account is subject to a counter-example which may be accomodated by a slight modification. So modified it describes an important dimension of confirmation. If the modification of Glymour's account is slightly extended, both the resulting account and the hypothetico-deductive account may be seen as special cases of a Bayesian theory which is immune to Glymour's criticisms.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  53. Ellery Eells & Branden Fitelson (2000). Measuring Confirmation and Evidence. Journal of Philosophy 97 (12):663-672.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  54. Leif Eriksen (1989). Confirmation, Paradox, and Logic. Philosophy of Science 56 (4):681-687.
    Paul Horwich has formulated a paradox which he believes to be even more virulent than the related Hempel paradox. I show that Horwich's paradox, as orginally formulated, has a purely logical solution, hence that it has no bearing on the theory of confirmation. On the other hand, it illuminates some undesirable traits of classical predicate logic. A revised formulation of the paradox is then dealt with in a way that implies a modest revision of Nicod's criterion.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  55. Edward Erwin & Harvey Siegel (1989). Is Confirmation Differential? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (1):105-119.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  56. Robert J. Farrell (1979). Material Implication, Confirmation, and Counterfactuals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20 (2):383-394.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  57. Roberto Festa (2012). “For Unto Every One That Hath Shall Be Given”. Matthew Properties for Incremental Confirmation. Synthese 184 (1):89-100.
    Confirmation of a hypothesis by evidence can be measured by one of the so far known incremental measures of confirmation. As we show, incremental measures can be formally defined as the measures of confirmation satisfying a certain small set of basic conditions. Moreover, several kinds of incremental measure may be characterized on the basis of appropriate structural properties. In particular, we focus on the so-called Matthew properties: we introduce a family of six Matthew properties including the reverse Matthew effect; we (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  58. Arthur Fine (1977). Conservation, the Sum Rule and Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 44 (1):95-106.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  59. Branden Fitelson, Comments and Criticism Measuring Confirmation and Evidence.
    Bayesian epistemology suggests various ways of measuring the support that a piece of evidence provides a hypothesis. Such measures are defined in terms of a subjective probability assignment, pr, over propositions entertained by an agent. The most standard measure (where “H” stands for “hypothesis” and “E” stands for “evidence”) is.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  60. Branden Fitelson (2007). Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and Relational Confirmation. Synthese 156 (3):473 - 489.
    Likelihoodists and Bayesians seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the proper probabilistic explication of relational (or contrastive) conceptions of evidential support (or confirmation). In this paper, I will survey some recent arguments and results in this area, with an eye toward pinpointing the nexus of the dispute. This will lead, first, to an important shift in the way the debate has been couched, and, second, to an alternative explication of relational support, which is in some sense a "middle way" (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: phonline.org springerlink.com jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  61. Branden Fitelson (2000). Measuring Confirmation and Evidence. Journal of Philosophy 97 (12):663 - 672.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  62. Branden Fitelson, Vincenzo Crupi & Katya Tentori (2008). Probability, Confirmation, and the Conjunction Fallacy. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (2):182-199.
    The conjunction fallacy has been a key topic in debates on the rationality of human reasoning and its limitations. Despite extensive inquiry, however, the attempt to provide a satisfactory account of the phenomenon has proved challenging. Here we elaborate the suggestion (first discussed by Sides, Osherson, Bonini, & Viale, 2002) that in standard conjunction problems the fallacious probability judgements observed experimentally are typically guided by sound assessments of confirmation relations, meant in terms of contemporary Bayesian confirmation theory. Our main formal (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: informaworld.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  63. Patrick Forber (2010). Confirmation and Explaining How Possible. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (1):32-40.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  64. Malcolm Forster, Many Kinds of Confirmation.
    Type 1: This process occurs for half of the population. For this segment of the population, there is 10% chance of developing the disease. There is a test for the disease such that 90% of the people who have the disease in this case will test positive (event E), while the false positive rate is 10%, which means that there is a 10% chance of testing positive for the disease when they do not have the disease.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  65. Malcolm Forster, Unification and Evidence.
    The Value of Good Illustrative Examples: In order to speak as generally as possible about science, philosophers of science have traditionally formulated their theses in terms of elementary logic and elementary probability theory. They often point to real scientific examples without explaining them in detail and/or use artificial examples that fail to fit with intricacies of real examples. Sometimes their illustrative examples are chosen to fit their framework, rather than the science. Frequently these are non-scientific examples, which distances the discussion (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: philosophy.wisc.edu   | Scholar | More options ...
  66. Rohan French & Lloyd Humberstone (2009). Partial Confirmation of a Conjecture on the Boxdot Translation in Modal Logic. Australasian Journal of Logic 7:56-61.
    The purpose of the present note is to advertise an interesting conjecture concerning a well-known translation in modal logic, by confirming a (highly restricted) special case of the conjecture.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  67. Steven French (1988). A Green Parrot is Just as Much a Red Herring as a White Shoe: A Note on Confirmation, Background Knowledge and the Logico-Probabilistic Approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (4):531-535.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  68. John E. Freund (1950). On the Confirmation of Scientific Theories. Philosophy of Science 17 (1):87-94.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  69. Michael Friedman (1979). Truth and Confirmation. Journal of Philosophy 76 (7):361-382.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  70. Ken Gemes, Carnap-Confirmation, Content-Cutting, & Real Confirmation.
    The attempt to explicate the intuitive notions of confirmation and inductive support through use of the formal calculus of probability received its canonical formulation in Carnap's The Logical Foundations of Probability. It is a central part of modern Bayesianism as developed recently, for instance, by Paul Horwich and John Earman. Carnap places much emphasis on the identification of confirmation with the notion of probabilistic favorable relevance. Notoriously, the notion of confirmation as probabilistic favorable relevance violates the intuitive transmittability condition that (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: philsci-archive.pitt.edu hdl.handle.net   | Scholar | More options ...
  71. Ken Gemes (2006). Bootstrapping and Content Parts. Erkenntnis 64 (3):345 - 370.
    Christensen [Philosophy of Science, 50: 471–481, 1983] and [Philosophy of Science, 57: 644–662, 1990] provides two sets of counter-examples to the versions of bootstrap confirmation for standard first-order languages presented in Glymour [Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980] and [Philosophy of Science, 50: 626–629, 1983]. This paper responds to the counter-examples of Christensen [Philosophy of Science, 50: 471–481, 1983] by utilizing a new notion of content introduced in Gemes [Journal of Philosophical Logic, 26, 449–476, 1997]. It is (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  72. Ken Gemes (2005). Hypothetico-Deductivism: Incomplete but Not Hopeless. Erkenntnis 63 (1):139 - 147.
    Alleged counter-examples deployed in Park (2004) [Erkenntnis 60: 229–240] against the account of selective hypothetico-deductive confirmation offered in Gemes (1998) [Erkenntnis 49: 1–20] are shown to be ineffective. Furthermore, the reservations expressed in Gemes (1998) [ibid] and (1993) [Philosophy of Science 62: 477–487] about hypothetico-deductivism (H-D) are retracted and replaced with the conclusion that H-D is a viable account of confirmation that captures much of the practice of working scientists. However, because it cannot capture cases of inference to (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  73. Jerzy Giedymin (1960). Confirmation, Critical Region and Empirical Content of Hypotheses. Studia Logica 10 (1):122 - 125.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  74. T. R. Girill (1978). Are Requirement and Confirmation Analogous? Philosophical Studies 33 (4):339 - 349.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  75. Clark Glymour, Confirmation and Chaos.
    Recently, Rueger and Sharp (1996) and Koperski (1998) have been concerned to show that certain procedural accounts of model confirmation are compromised by non-linear dynamics. We suggest that the issues raised are better approached by considering whether chaotic data analysis methods allow for reliable inference from data. We provide a framework and an example of this approach.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: phil.cmu.edu   | Scholar | More options ...
  76. L. Goddard (1977). The Paradoxes of Confirmation and the Nature of Natural Laws. Philosophical Quarterly 27 (107):97-113.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  77. I. J. Good (1985). A Historical Comment Concerning Novel Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (2):184-185.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: bjps.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  78. Nelson Goodman (1947). On Infirmities of Confirmation-Theory. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8 (1):149-151.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  79. Nelson Goodman (1946). A Query on Confirmation. Journal of Philosophy 43 (14):383-385.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  80. Richard E. Grandy (1967). Some Comments on Confirmation and Selective Confirmation. Philosophical Studies 18 (1-2):19 - 24.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  81. John Grant (1978). Confirmation of Empirical Theories by Observation Sets. Philosophia 8 (2-3):367-380.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: springerlink.com dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  82. P. Gulbrandsen & B. F. Jensen (2010). Post-Recruitment Confirmation of Informed Consent by SMS. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (2):126-128.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  83. Barbro Gustafsson & Ingmar Pörn (1994). A Motivational Approach to Confirmation: An Interpretation of Dysphagic Patients' Experiences. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (4).
    In this paper we articulate confirmation and disconfirmation as components in human motivation. We develop a theory of motivation on the basis of a model of human action and we explore aspects of confirmation and disconfirmation in the context of the meeting of dysphagic patients with their physicians. We distinguish four central elements in confirmation and disconfirmation and use these and the relations between them for the purpose of constructing a typology. Finally, on the basis of the results obtained we (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  84. Theodore Hailperin (2007). Quantifier Probability Logic and the Confirmation Paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic 28 (1):83-100.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  85. Alan Hájek & James M. Joyce, Confirmation.
    I.1. Introduction Confirmation theory is intended to codify the evidential bearing of observations on hypotheses, characterizing relations of inductive “support” and “counter­support” in full generality. The central task is to understand what it means to say that datum E confirms or supports a hypothesis H when E does not logically entail H.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
  86. Marsha Hanen (1971). Confirmation and Adequacy Conditions. Philosophy of Science 38 (3):361-368.
    Several standard conditions of adequacy for confirmation are considered and a conclusion of B. Skyrms regarding the converse-consequence condition is shown to be mistaken. Widely accepted conditions such as the entailment condition and the special consequence condition are shown to be open to counterexample, and confusion about these conditions is traced to confusion about the difference between two kinds of confirmation concepts--concepts of firmness and concepts of increase in firmness. The importance of concepts of the latter sort is stressed. Finally, (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  87. Maralee Harrell & Clark Glymour (2002). Confirmation and Chaos. Philosophy of Science 69 (2):256-265.
    Recently, Rueger and Sharp (1996) and Koperski (1998) have been concerned to show that certain procedural accounts of model confirmation are compromised by non‐linear dynamics. We suggest that the issues raised are better approached by considering whether chaotic data analysis methods allow for reliable inference from data. We provide a framework and an example of this approach.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: journals.uchicago.edu jstor.org hss.cmu.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  88. Olaf Helmer & Paul Oppenheim (1945). A Syntactical Definition of Probability and of Degree of Confirmation. Journal of Symbolic Logic 10 (2):25-60.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  89. Carl A. Hempel (1983). Studies in the Logic of Confirmation. In Peter Achinstein (ed.), The Concept of Evidence. Oxford University Press.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: mind.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  90. Carl G. Hempel (1968). On a Claim by Skyrms Concerning Lawlikeness and Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 35 (3):274-278.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  91. Carl G. Hempel (1946). A Note on the Parodoxes of Confirmation. Mind 55 (217):79-82.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  92. Carl G. Hempel (1945). Studies in the Logic of Confirmation (I.). Mind 54 (213):1-26.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  93. Carl G. Hempel (1945). Studies in the Logic of Confirmation (II.). Mind 54 (214):97-121.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org mind.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  94. Carl G. Hempel (1943). A Purely Syntactical Definition of Confirmation. Journal of Symbolic Logic 8 (4):122-143.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  95. Carl G. Hempel & Paul Oppenheim (1945). A Definition of "Degree of Confirmation". Philosophy of Science 12 (2):98-115.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  96. Christian Hennig (2007). Falsification of Propensity Models by Statistical Tests and the Goodness-of-Fit Paradox. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (2):166-192.
    Gillies introduced a propensity interpretation of probability which is linked to experience by a falsifying rule for probability statements. The present paper argues that general statistical tests should qualify as falsification rules. The ‘goodness-of-fit paradox’ is introduced: the confirmation of a probability model by a test refutes the model's validity. An example is given in which an independence test introduces dependence. Several possibilities to interpret the paradox and to deal with it are discussed. It is concluded that the propensity interpretation (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: philmat.oxfordjournals.org dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  97. Mary Hesse (1970). Theories and the Transitivity of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 37 (1):50-63.
    Hempel's qualitative criteria of converse consequence and special consequence for confirmation are examined, and the resulting paradoxes traced to the general intransitivity of confirmation. Adopting a probabilistic measure of confirmation, a limiting form of transitivity of confirmation from evidence to predictions is derived, and it is shown to what extent its application depends on prior probability judgments. In arguments involving this kind of transitivity therefore there is no necessary "convergence of opinion" in the sense claimed by some personalists. The conditions (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  98. Mary Hesse (1964). Analogy and Confirmation Theory. Philosophy of Science 31 (4):319-327.
    The argument from analogy is examined from the point of view of Carnap's confirmation theory. It is argued that if inductive arguments are to be applicable to the real world, they must contain elementary analogical inferences. Carnap's system as originally developed (theλ -system) is not strong enough to take account of analogical arguments, but it is shown that the new system, which he has announced but not published in detail (theη -system), is capable of satisfying the conditions of inductive analogy. (...)
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org journals.uchicago.edu dx.doi.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  99. Paul Horwich (1978). An Appraisal of Glymour's Confirmation Theory. Journal of Philosophy 75 (2):98-113.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
  100. Janina Hosiasson-Lindenbaum (1940). On Confirmation. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (4):133-148.
    Reading list   |  Discuss  |  Edit  |  Categorize  |  Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  |
     
    Export citation  | Other links: jstor.org   | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
1 — 100 / 358