David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 58 (4):523-552 (1991)
While many philosophers of science have accorded special evidential significance to tests whose results are "novel facts", there continues to be disagreement over both the definition of novelty and why it should matter. The view of novelty favored by Giere, Lakatos, Worrall and many others is that of use-novelty: An accordance between evidence e and hypothesis h provides a genuine test of h only if e is not used in h's construction. I argue that what lies behind the intuition that novelty matters is the deeper intuition that severe tests matter. I set out a criterion of severity akin to the notion of a test's power in Neyman-Pearson statistics. I argue that tests which are use-novel may fail to be severe, and tests that are severe may fail to be use-novel. I discuss the 1919 eclipse data as a severe test of Einstein's law of gravity
|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
Jacqueline Anne Sullivan (2009). The Multiplicity of Experimental Protocols: A Challenge to Reductionist and Non-Reductionist Models of the Unity of Neuroscience. Synthese 167 (3):511-539.
David Harker (2008). On the Predilections for Predictions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):429-453.
Samuel Schindler (2014). Novelty, Coherence, and Mendeleev’s Periodic Table. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45 (1):62-69.
Gerhard Schurz (2014). Bayesian Pseudo-Confirmation, Use-Novelty, and Genuine Confirmation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45 (1):87-96.
Aris Spanos (2007). Curve Fitting, the Reliability of Inductive Inference, and the Error-Statistical Approach. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):1046-1066.
Similar books and articles
Robin Giles (1979). The Concept of a Proposition in Classical and Quantum Physics. Studia Logica 38 (4):337 - 353.
Deborah G. Mayo (2008). How to Discount Double-Counting When It Counts: Some Clarifications. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):857-879.
Deborah G. Mayo (1992). Did Pearson Reject the Neyman-Pearson Philosophy of Statistics? Synthese 90 (2):233 - 262.
Deborah G. Mayo (1997). Severe Tests, Arguing From Error, and Methodological Underdetermination. Philosophical Studies 86 (3):243-266.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (2008). The Big Test of Corroboration. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):293 – 302.
Kent W. Staley (1996). Novelty, Severity, and History in the Testing of Hypotheses: The Case of the Top Quark. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):255.
Deborah G. Mayo (1985). Behavioristic, Evidentialist, and Learning Models of Statistical Testing. Philosophy of Science 52 (4):493-516.
G. R. (2003). Novelty and the 1919 Eclipse Experiments. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (1):107-129.
Tetsuji Iseda (1999). Use-Novelty, Severity, and a Systematic Neglect of Relevant Alternatives. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):413.
Deborah G. Mayo & Aris Spanos (2006). Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman–Pearson Philosophy of Induction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):323-357.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #128,711 of 1,911,521 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #321,691 of 1,911,521 )
How can I increase my downloads?