Bayesian h-d confirmation and structuralistic truthlikeness: Discussion and comparison with the relevant-element and the content-part approach
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):141-159 (2005)
In this paper it is shown that, in spite of their intuitive starting points, Kuipers' accounts lead to counterintuitive consequences. The counterintuitive results of Kuipers' account of H-D confirmation stem from the fact that Kuipers explicates a concept of partial (as opposed to full) confirmation. It is shown that Schurz-Weingartner's relevant-element approach as well as Gemes' content-part approach provide an account of full confirmation that does not lead to these counterintuitive results. One of the unwelcome results of Kuipers' account of nomic truthlikeness is the consequence that a theory Y, in order to be more truthlike than a theory X (where Y and X are incompatible), must imply the entire nomic truth. It is shown how the relevant-element approach to truthlikeness avoids this result.
|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
Branden Fitelson & James Hawthorne (2010). How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens. In. In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer. 247--275.
Graham Oddie (1986). The Poverty of the Popperian Program for Truthlikeness. Philosophy of Science 53 (2):163-178.
Aysel Dogan (2005). Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36 (2):243 - 259.
Patrick Maher (2005). Qualitative Confirmation and the Ravens Paradox. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):89-108.
Patrick Maher (1996). Subjective and Objective Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63 (2):149-174.
Vincenzo Crupi, Roberto Festa & and Tommaso Mastropasqua (2008). Bayesian Confirmation by Uncertain Evidence: A Reply to Huber . British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):201-211.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (2005). Abduction and Truthlikeness. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):255-275.
Theo A. F. Kuipers (2005). Confirmation and Truthlikeness: Reply to Gerhard Schurz. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):160-166.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #50,800 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)24 ( #5,800 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?