Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 74 (5):1046-1066 (2007)
|Abstract||The main aim of this paper is to revisit the curve fitting problem using the reliability of inductive inference as a primary criterion for the ‘fittest' curve. Viewed from this perspective, it is argued that a crucial concern with the current framework for addressing the curve fitting problem is, on the one hand, the undue influence of the mathematical approximation perspective, and on the other, the insufficient attention paid to the statistical modeling aspects of the problem. Using goodness-of-fit as the primary criterion for ‘best', the mathematical approximation perspective undermines the reliability of inference objective by giving rise to selection rules which pay insufficient attention to ‘accounting for the regularities in the data'. A more appropriate framework is offered by the error-statistical approach, where (i) statistical adequacy provides the criterion for assessing when a curve captures the regularities in the data adequately, and (ii) the relevant error probabilities can be used to assess the reliability of inductive inference. Broadly speaking, the fittest curve (statistically adequate) is not determined by the smallness if its residuals, tempered by simplicity or other pragmatic criteria, but by the nonsystematic (e.g. white noise) nature of its residuals. The advocated error-statistical arguments are illustrated by comparing the Kepler and Ptolemaic models on empirical grounds. ‡I am grateful to Deborah Mayo and Clark Glymour for many valuable suggestions and comments on an earlier draft of the paper; estimating the Ptolemaic model was the result of Glymour's prompting and encouragement. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Economics, Virginia Tech 3019 Pamplin Hall (0316), Blacksburg, VA 24061; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Deborah G. Mayo (1997). Error Statistics and Learning From Error: Making a Virtue of Necessity. Philosophy of Science 64 (4):212.
Prasanta S. Bandyopadhayay, Robert J. Boik & Prasun Basu (1996). The Curve Fitting Problem: A Bayesian Approach. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):272.
Malcolm Forster & Elliott Sober (1994). How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):1-35.
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.
Deborah G. Mayo & Aris Spanos (eds.) (2010). Error and Inference: Recent Exchanges on Experimental Reasoning, Reliability, and the Objectivity and Rationality of Science. Cambridge University Press.
Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Robert J. Boik (1999). The Curve Fitting Problem: A Bayesian Rejoinder. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):402.
Aris Spanos (2010). The Discovery of Argon: A Case for Learning From Data? Philosophy of Science 77 (3):359-380.
Peter Turney (1990). The Curve Fitting Problem: A Solution. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 41 (4):509-530.
André Kukla (1995). Forster and Sober on the Curve-Fitting Problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):248-252.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #65,392 of 739,324 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,324 )
How can I increase my downloads?