British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2):332 - 338 (2007)
|Abstract||By and large, we think (Strevens's ) is a useful reply to our original critique (Fitelson and Waterman ) of his article on the Quine-Duhem (QD) problem (Strevens ). But, we remain unsatisfied with several aspects of his reply (and his original article). Ultimately, we do not think he properly addresses our most important worries. In this brief rejoinder, we explain our remaining worries, and we issue a revised challenge for Strevens's approach to QD|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Strevens (2006). The Bayesian Approach to the Philosophy of Science. In D. M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second edition.
Branden Fitelson (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):378.
Michael Strevens (2004). Bayesian Confirmation Theory: Inductive Logic, or Mere Inductive Framework? Synthese 141 (3):365 - 379.
James Hawthorne & Branden Fitelson (2004). Discussion: Re‐Solving Irrelevant Conjunction with Probabilistic Independence. Philosophy of Science 71 (4):505-514.
Branden Fitelson (2004). Discussion: Re-Solving Irrelevant Conjunction with Probabilistic Independence. Philosophy of Science 71:505-514.
Michael Strevens (2001). The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):515-537.
Michael Strevens (2005). The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses: Reply to Fitelson and Waterman. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):913-918.
Branden Fitelson & Andrew Waterman (2005). Bayesian Confirmation and Auxiliary Hypotheses Revisited: A Reply to Strevens. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):293-302.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,541 of 722,868 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?