Bayes or Bust?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
There is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. Both Bayesians and anti-Bayesians will find a wealth of new insights on topics ranging from Bayes's original paper to contemporary formal learning theory. In a paper published posthumously in 1763, the Reverend Thomas Bayes made a seminal contribution to the understanding of "analogical or inductive reasoning." Building on his insights, modem Bayesians have developed an account of scientific inference that has attracted numerous champions as well as numerous detractors. Earman argues that Bayesianism provides the best hope for a comprehensive and unified account of scientific inference, yet the presently available versions of Bayesianisin fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirming of scientific theories and hypotheses. By focusing on the need for a resolution to this impasse, Earman sharpens the issues on which a resolution turns. John Earman is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.
|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
Thomas Kelly & Sarah McGrath (2010). Is Reflective Equilibrium Enough? Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):325-359.
Darren Bradley (2011). Self-Location is No Problem for Conditionalization. Synthese 182 (3):393-411.
Alexander Bird (2010). The Epistemology of Science—a Bird's-Eye View. Synthese 175 (1):5 - 16.
Sinan Dogramaci (2013). Intuitions for Inferences. Philosophical Studies 165 (2):371-399.
Jeremy Gwiazda (2010). Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Exact Numerical Values. Philosophia 38 (2):357-363.
Similar books and articles
John Earman (1990). Bayes' Bayesianism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (3):351-370.
Geoffrey Hellman (1997). Bayes and Beyond. Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.
Harold I. Brown (1994). Reason, Judgement and Bayes's Law. Philosophy of Science 61 (3):351-369.
Marc Lange (1994). Earman on the Projectibility of Grue. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:87 - 95.
Neil Tennant (2006). A Note on the Irrelevance of Probabilistic Irrelevance. Analysis 66 (289):32–35.
H. I. Brown (1994). Book Reviews : John Earman, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992. Pp. Xvi, 272. $35.00 (Cloth. [REVIEW] Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24 (3):383-385.
David Christensen (1994). John Earman's 'Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory' (Book Review). Philosophical Review 103:345-347.
John Worrall (1994). Book Review:Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory John Earman. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 61 (4):672-.
Malcolm R. Forster (1995). Bayes and Bust: Simplicity as a Problem for a Probabilist's Approach to Confirmation. [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (3):399-424.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-08-21
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?