Testing Scientific Theories, John Earman (Ed.): Explaining Confirmation Practice:Testing Scientific Theories John Earman

Philosophy of Science 55 (2):292- (1988)
The contributions to Testing Scientific Theories are unified by an in-terest in responding to criticisms directed by Glymour against existing models of confirmation—chiefly H-D and Bayesian schemas—and in assessing and correcting the "bootstrap" model of confirmation that he proposed as an alternative in Theory and Evidence (1980). As such, they provide a representative sample of objections to Glymour's model and of the wide range of new initiatives in thinking about scientific confirmation that it has influenced. The effect is a sense of engagement and focus, and of significant advance at least in articulation of the problems that require solution; as Earman observes, "it is . . . heartening to report that the various opposing camps learned from each other" (p. vi).' In what follows I am concerned to assess what has been learned both critically, about Glymour's model, and constructively about the resources of the alternatives he challenges. My thesis is that while the theories emerging in this debate do deal with a wider range of scientific practice than before, their remaining limitations raise important questions about the ambitions and criteria of adequacy that have traditionally governed philosophical inquiry in this area.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/289435
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,824
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Bayes or Bust?John Earman - 1992 - Bradford.
Testing Scientific Theories.John Earman (ed.) - 1984 - Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ceteris Paribus Lost.John Earman, John T. Roberts & Sheldon Smith - 2002 - Erkenntnis 57 (3):281-301.
The Epistemology of Evidence in Cognitive Neuroscience.William P. Bechtel - forthcoming - In R. Skipper Jr, C. Allen, R. A. Ankeny, C. F. Craver, L. Darden, G. Mikkelson & and R. Richardson (eds.), Philosophy and the Life Sciences: A Reader. MIT Press.
Remarks on Relational Theories of Motion.John Earman - 1989 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19 (1):83 - 87.
On the Confirmation of Scientific Theories.John E. Freund - 1950 - Philosophy of Science 17 (1):87-94.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

10 ( #435,665 of 2,178,175 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #316,504 of 2,178,175 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums