David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 64 (2):222-244 (1997)
I argue that the Bayesian Way of reconstructing Duhem's problem fails to advance a solution to the problem of which of a group of hypotheses ought to be rejected or "blamed" when experiment disagrees with prediction. But scientists do regularly tackle and often enough solve Duhemian problems. When they do, they employ a logic and methodology which may be called error statistics. I discuss the key properties of this approach which enable it to split off the task of testing auxiliary hypotheses from that of appraising a primary hypothesis. By discriminating patterns of error, this approach can at least block, if not also severely test, attempted explanations of an anomaly. I illustrate how this approach directs progress with Duhemian problems and explains how scientists actually grapple with them
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Aris Spanos & Deborah G. Mayo (2015). Error Statistical Modeling and Inference: Where Methodology Meets Ontology. Synthese 192 (11):3533-3555.
Kent Staley & Aaron Cobb (2011). Internalist and Externalist Aspects of Justification in Scientific Inquiry. Synthese 182 (3):475-492.
Aris Spanos (2013). A Frequentist Interpretation of Probability for Model-Based Inductive Inference. Synthese 190 (9):1555-1585.
Kent W. Staley (2010). Evidence and Justification in Groups with Conflicting Background Beliefs. Episteme 7 (3):232-247.
Emrah Aktunc (2014). Tackling Duhemian Problems: An Alternative to Skepticism of Neuroimaging in Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5 (4):449-464.
Similar books and articles
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2010). Corroboration and Auxiliary Hypotheses: Duhem's Thesis Revisited. Synthese 177 (1):139-149.
Persi Diaconis & Susan Holmes (1996). Are There Still Things to Do in Bayesian Statistics? Erkenntnis 45 (2-3):145 - 158.
Daniel Steel (2001). Bayesian Statistics in Radiocarbon Calibration. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S153-.
Henry E. Kyburg Jr (2006). Belief, Evidence, and Conditioning. Philosophy of Science 73 (1):42-65.
R. Festa (1993). Optimum Inductive Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Branden Fitelson & Andrew Waterman (2005). Bayesian Confirmation and Auxiliary Hypotheses Revisited: A Reply to Strevens. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):293-302.
Deborah G. Mayo (1997). Error Statistics and Learning From Error: Making a Virtue of Necessity. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):212.
Michael Strevens (2001). The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (3):515-537.
Gregory Wheeler (2000). Error Statistics and Duhem's Problem. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):410-420.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #107,957 of 1,907,507 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #464,819 of 1,907,507 )
How can I increase my downloads?