|Abstract||In Bayes or Bust? John Earman quickly dismisses a possible resolution (or avoidance) of the problem of old evidence. In this note, I argue that his dismissal is premature, and that the proposed resolution (when charitably reconstructed) is reasonable.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John Worrall (1994). Book Review:Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory John Earman. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 61 (4):672-.
Maximillian Schlosshauer & Gregory Wheeler (2011). Focused Correlation, Confirmation, and the Jigsaw Puzzle of Variable Evidence. Philosophy of Science 78 (3):376-92.
Roberto Festa (2012). “For Unto Every One That Hath Shall Be Given”. Matthew Properties for Incremental Confirmation. Synthese 184 (1):89-100.
Branden Fitelson (2001). Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines (2011). Causation, Association and Confirmation. In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer.
Ellery Eells & Branden Fitelson (2000). Comments and Criticism: Measuring Confirmation and Evidence. Journal of Philosophy 97 (12):663-672.
John Earman (1992). Bayes or Bust? Bradford.
Branden Fitelson (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):378.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #81,741 of 722,863 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,863 )
How can I increase my downloads?