Abstract
In a recent paper James Bogen and James Woodward denounce a set of views on confirmation that they collectively brand ‘IRS’. The supporters of these views cast confirmation in terms of Inferential Relations between observational and theoretical Sentences. Against IRS accounts of confirmation, Bogen and Woodward unveil two main objections: (a) inferential relations are not necessary to model confirmation relations since many data are neither in sentential form nor can they be put in such a form and (b) inferential relations are not sufficient to model confirmation relations because the former cannot capture evidentially relevant factors about the detection processes and instruments that generate the data. In this paper I have a two-fold aim: (i) to show that Bogen and Woodward fail to provide compelling grounds for the rejection of IRS models and (ii) to highlight some of the models’ neglected merits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bogen J., Woodward J. (1988) Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review 97: 303–352
Bogen J., Woodward J. (1992) Observations, theories and the evolutions of the human spirit. Philosophy of Science 59(4): 590–611
Bogen J., Woodward J. (2003) Evading the IRS. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities. In: Jones R., Cartwright N. (eds) Idealization XII: Correcting the model. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 233–268
Franklin A. (1994) How to avoid the experimenter’s regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25(3): 463–491
Glymour C. (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Hempel C. G. (1943) A purely syntactical definition of confirmation. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 8(4): 122–143
Hempel C. G. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. The Free Press, New York
Howson C., Urbach P. (1989) Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Open Court, La Salle, IL
Votsis, I. (forthcoming). Making contact with observations. In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rédei (Eds.), EPSAO7: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association. Springer.
Woodward J. (1989) Data and phenomena. Synthese 79(3): 393–472
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Votsis, I. Data meet theory: up close and inferentially personal. Synthese 182, 89–100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9614-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9614-9