David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):283-295 (1999)
Assuming it rational to treat other persons' probabilities as epistemically significant, how shall their judgements be weighted (Barnes )? Several plausible methods exist, but theorems in classical psychometrics greatly reduce the importance of the problem. If scientists' judgements tend to be positively correlated, the difference between two randomly weighted composites shrinks as the number of judges rises. Since, for reasons such as representative coverage, minimizing bias, and avoiding elitism, we would rarely employ small numbers of judges (e.g. less than 10), the difference between two weighting systems becomes negligible. Suggestions are made for quantifying verisimilitude, identifying 'types' of scientists or theories (taxometrics), inferring latent factors, and estimating reliability of pooled judgements.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John C. Harsanyi (1983). Bayesian Decision Theory, Subjective and Objective Probabilities, and Acceptance of Empirical Hypotheses. Synthese 57 (3):341 - 365.
T. Britton (2004). The Problem of Verisimilitude and Counting Partially Identical Properties. Synthese 141 (1):77 - 95.
Festa, Roberto, Optimum Inductive Methods. A Study in Inductive Probability, Bayesian Statistics, and Verisimilitude.
Enrico Cantore (1971). Humanistic Significance of Science: Some Methodological Considerations. Philosophy of Science 38 (3):395-412.
Joachim Hornung (1980). Carnap's Inductive Probabilities as a Contribution to Decision Theory. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 1 (3):325-367.
Michael J. Shaffer (2001). Bayesian Confirmation of Theories That Incorporate Idealizations. Philosophy of Science 68 (1):36-52.
Jonathan Barnes (1993). A Big, Big D? The Classical Review 43 (02):304-306.
Haim Gaifman (2004). Reasoning with Limited Resources and Assigning Probabilities to Arithmetical Statements. Synthese 140 (1-2):97 - 119.
Itzhak Gilboa, Offer Lieberman & David Schmeidler (2010). On the Definition of Objective Probabilities by Empirical Similarity. Synthese 172 (1):79 - 95.
Eric Christian Barnes (1998). Probabilities and Epistemic Pluralism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):31-47.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?