Experimental practice and an error statistical account of evidence

Philosophy of Science 67 (3):207 (2000)
In seeking general accounts of evidence, confirmation, or inference, philosophers have looked to logical relationships between evidence and hypotheses. Such logics of evidential relationship, whether hypothetico-deductive, Bayesian, or instantiationist fail to capture or be relevant to scientific practice. They require information that scientists do not generally have (e.g., an exhaustive set of hypotheses), while lacking slots within which to include considerations to which scientists regularly appeal (e.g., error probabilities). Building on my co-symposiasts contributions, I suggest some directions in which a new and more adequate philosophy of evidence can move
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/392819
 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: 16,707
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Wendy S. Parker (2008). Franklin, Holmes, and the Epistemology of Computer Simulation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (2):165 – 183.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

144 ( #15,907 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

121 ( #6,307 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

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