Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 71:505-514 (2004)
|Abstract||Naive deductivist accounts of confirmation have the undesirable consequence that if E confirms H, then E also confirms the conjunction H·X, for any X _ even if X is completely irrelevant to E and H. Bayesian accounts of confirmation may appear to have the same problem. In a recent article in this journal Fitelson (2002) argued that existing Bayesian attempts to resolve of this problem are inadequate in several important respects. Fitelson then proposes a new-and-improved Bayesian account that overcomes the problem of irrelevant conjunction, and does so in a more general setting than past attempts. We will show how to simplify and improve upon Fitelson’s solution.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Branden Fitelson & James Hawthorne (2010). How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens. In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer.
Branden Fitelson (2001). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Vincenzo Crupi & Katya Tentori (2010). Irrelevant Conjunction: Statement and Solution of a New Paradox. Philosophy of Science 77 (1):1-13.
Patrick Maher (2004). Bayesianism and Irrelevant Conjunction. Philosophy of Science 71 (4):515-520.
Branden Fitelson (2002). Putting the Irrelevance Back Into the Problem of Irrelevant Conjunction. Philosophy of Science 69 (4):611-622.
James Hawthorne & Branden Fitelson (2004). Discussion: Re‐Solving Irrelevant Conjunction with Probabilistic Independence. Philosophy of Science 71 (4):505-514.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,394 of 725,973 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 725,973 )
How can I increase my downloads?