David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behind this question are two fundamentally different approaches about how to reason with chance hypotheses. One approach, due to Ronald Fisher, rejects a chance hypothesis provided sample data appear in a prespecified rejection region. The other, due to Thomas Bayes, rejects a chance hypothesis provided an alternative hypothesis confers a bigger probability on the data in question than the original hypothesis. In the Fisherian approach, chance hypotheses are rejected in isolation for rendering data too improbable. In the Bayesian approach, chance hypotheses are eliminated provided some other hypotheses render the data more probable. Whereas in the Fisherian approach the emphasis is on elimination, in the Bayesian approach the emphasis is on comparison. These approaches are incompatible, and the statistical community itself is deeply riven over which of these approaches to adopt as the right canon for statistical rationality. The difference reflects a deep divergence in fundamental intuitions about the nature of statistical rationality and in particular about what counts as statistical evidence.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kent Staley (2008). Error-Statistical Elimination of Alternative Hypotheses. Synthese 163 (3):397 - 408.
Siu L. Chow (1998). The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure is Still Warranted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):228-235.
Kent Staley (2012). Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Joseph Berkovitz (2002). On Causal Inference in Determinism and Indeterminism. In Harald Atmanspacher & Robert C. Bishop (eds.), Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism. Thorverton Uk: Imprint Academic. 237--278.
D. H. Mellor (2004). The Matter of Chance. Cambridge University Press.
James Hawthorne (1993). Bayesian Induction IS Eliminative Induction. Philosophical Topics 21 (1):99-138.
Joseph B. Kadane, Mark J. Schervish & Teddy Seidenfeld (1996). When Several Bayesians Agree That There Will Be No Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):289.
Elliott Sober (2002). Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52 (2):65-80.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #234,761 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,017 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?