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 60 (1):79-100 (2009)
This essay presents results about a deviation from independence measure called focused correlation . This measure explicates the formal relationship between probabilistic dependence of an evidence set and the incremental confirmation of a hypothesis, resolves a basic question underlying Peter Klein and Ted Warfield's ‘truth-conduciveness’ problem for Bayesian coherentism, and provides a qualified rebuttal to Erik Olsson's claim that there is no informative link between correlation and confirmation. The generality of the result is compared to recent programs in Bayesian epistemology that attempt to link correlation and confirmation by utilizing a conditional evidential independence condition. Several properties of focused correlation are also highlighted. Introduction Correlation Measures 2.1 Standard covariance and correlation measures 2.2 The Wayne–Shogenji measure 2.3 Interpreting correlation measures 2.4 Correlation and evidential independence Focused Correlation Conclusion Appendix CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
|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
Peter Klein & Ted A. Warfield (1994). What Price Coherence? Analysis 54 (3):129 - 132.
Wayne C. Myrvold (1996). Bayesianism and Diverse Evidence: A Reply to Andrew Wayne. Philosophy of Science 63 (4):661-665.
Tomoji Shogenji (2007). Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive? Synthese 157 (3):361 - 372.
Citations of this work BETA
Jonah N. Schupbach (2011). New Hope for Shogenji's Coherence Measure. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (1):125-142.
William Roche (2012). Witness Agreement and the Truth-Conduciveness of Coherentist Justification. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):151-169.
Arthur Paul Pedersen & Gregory Wheeler (2013). Demystifying Dilation. Erkenntnis (6):1-38.
Gregory Wheeler (2012). Explaining the Limits of Olsson's Impossibility Result. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):136-150.
William Roche (2013). On the Truth-Conduciveness of Coherence. Erkenntnis:1-19.
Similar books and articles
Roberto Festa (2012). “For Unto Every One That Hath Shall Be Given”. Matthew Properties for Incremental Confirmation. Synthese 184 (1):89-100.
Nevin Climenhaga (2013). A Problem for the Alternative Difference Measure of Confirmation. Philosophical Studies 164 (3):643-651.
Branden Fitelson (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):378.
Frederick S. Ellett Jr & David P. Ericson (1986). Correlation, Partial Correlation, and Causation. Synthese 67 (2):157 - 173.
Frederick S. Ellett & David P. Ericson (1986). Correlation, Partial Correlation, and Causation. Synthese 67 (2):157-173.
Maximillian Schlosshauer & Gregory Wheeler (2011). Focused Correlation, Confirmation, and the Jigsaw Puzzle of Variable Evidence. Philosophy of Science 78 (3):376-92.
Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines (2011). Causation, Association and Confirmation. In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer. 37--51.
Added to index2009-02-14
Total downloads14 ( #118,966 of 1,100,041 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #127,210 of 1,100,041 )
How can I increase my downloads?