The quantitative problem of old evidence
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):249-264 (1999)
| Abstract | The quantitative problem of old evidence is the problem of how to measure the degree to which e confirms h for agent A at time t when A regards e as justified at t. Existing attempts to solve this problem have applied the e-difference approach, which compares A's probability for h at t with what probability A would assign h if A did not regard e as justified at t. The quantitative problem has been widely regarded as unsolvable primarily on the grounds that the e-difference approach suffers from intractable problems. Various philosophers have proposed that 'Bayesianism' should be rejected as a research strategy in confirmation theory in part because of the unsolvability of this problem. I develop a version of the e-difference approach which overcomes these problems and possesses various advantages (but also certain limitations). I develop an alternative 'theistic' approach which handles many cases that my development of the e-difference approach does not handle. I conclude with an assessment of the significance of the quantitative problem for Bayesianism and argue that this problem is misunderstood in so far as it is regarded as unsolvable, and in so far as it is regarded as a problem only for Bayesians. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBerry Groisman (2008). The End of Sleeping Beauty's Nightmare. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):409-416.
Alan Hájek (2007). The Reference Class Problem is Your Problem Too. Synthese 156 (3):563--585.
Mark Sprevak (2005). The Frame Problem and the Treatment of Prediction. In L. Magnani & R. Dossena (eds.), Computing, Philosophy and Cognition.
James Hawthorne (2005). Degree-of-Belief and Degree-of-Support: Why Bayesians Need Both Notions. Mind 114 (454):277-320.
Gregory Wheeler (2012). Objective Bayesian Calibration and the Problem of Non-Convex Evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (4):841-850.
Elijah Chudnoff (2011). What Should a Theory of Knowledge Do? Dialectica 65 (4):561-579.
M. Wayne Cooper (1992). Should Physicians Be Bayesian Agents? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 13 (4).
Branden Fitelson (2001). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1982). Truthlikeness for Quantitative Statements. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:208 - 216.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads51 ( #20,517 of 549,044 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,044 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
