Some Recent Fallacies of Approximation in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Abstract • Several recent Bayesian discussions make use of “approximation” – Earman on the Quantitative Old Evidence Problem – Vranas on Quantitative Approaches to the Ravens Paradox – Dorling’s Quantitative Approach to Duhem–Quine – Strevens’s Quantitative Approach to Duhem–Quine – rThere are also examples not involving confirmation: E.g.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified (fix it)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,865
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Only published papers are available at libraries

    Similar books and articles
    Thomas Mormann (2005). Geometry of Logic and Truth Approximation. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):431-454.
    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.
    Geoffrey Hellman (1997). Bayes and Beyond. Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.
    Branden Fitelson (2001). A Bayesian Account of Independent Evidence with Applications. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S123-.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2010-12-22

    Total downloads

    7 ( #134,848 of 556,769 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #64,754 of 556,769 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums