David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Predictions about the future and unrestricted universal generalizations are never logically implied by our observational evidence, which is limited to particular facts in the present and past. Nevertheless, propositions of these and other kinds are often said to be conﬁrmed by observational evidence. A natural place to begin the study of conﬁrmation theory is to consider what it means to say that some evidence E conﬁrms a hypothesis H.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Maher (2004). Probability Captures the Logic of Scientific Confirmation. In Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Blackwell Pub.. 69--93.
Neil Tennant (2006). A Note on the Irrelevance of Probabilistic Irrelevance. Analysis 66 (289):32–35.
Colin Howson & Allan Franklin (1991). Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism. Philosophy of Science 58 (4):574-585.
Hilary Greaves & Wayne C. Myrvold (2010). Everett and Evidence. In Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent & David Wallace (eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford University Press.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd (2010). Conﬁrmation and Robustness of Climate Models. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):971–984.
Peter Kosso & Cynthia Kosso (1995). Central Place Theory and the Reciprocity Between Theory and Evidence. Philosophy of Science 62 (4):581-598.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads10 ( #118,593 of 1,014,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,366 of 1,014,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?