The Turing-good weight of evidence function and Popper's measure of the severity of a test
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (1):143-146 (1990)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBenny Shanon (1989). A Simple Comment Regarding the Turing Test. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (June):249-56.
Ayse Pinar Saygin, Ilyas Cicekli & Varol Akman (2000). Turing Test: 50 Years Later. Minds and Machines 10 (4):463-518.
James H. Moor (2001). The Status and Future of the Turing Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):77-93.
Sean Zdenek (2001). Passing Loebner's Turing Test: A Case of Conflicting Discourse Functions. Minds and Machines 11 (1):53-76.
Rod O'Donnell (1992). Keynes's Weight of Argument and Popper's Paradox of Ideal Evidence. Philosophy of Science 59 (1):44-52.
Justin Leiber (1995). On Turing's Turing Test and Why the Matter Matters. Synthese 104 (1):59-69.
Tetsuji Iseda (1999). Use-Novelty, Severity, and a Systematic Neglect of Relevant Alternatives. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):413.
B. Jack Copeland (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Gordon G. Brittan (2006). Acceptibility, Evidence, and Severity. Synthese 148 (2):259 - 293.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #122,991 of 549,013 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,013 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
