AbstractThere is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. Both Bayesians and anti-Bayesians will find a wealth of new insights on topics ranging from Bayes's original paper to contemporary formal learning theory. In a paper published posthumously in 1763, the Reverend Thomas Bayes made a seminal contribution to the understanding of "analogical or inductive reasoning." Building on his insights, modem Bayesians have developed an account of scientific inference that has attracted numerous champions as well as numerous detractors. Earman argues that Bayesianism provides the best hope for a comprehensive and unified account of scientific inference, yet the presently available versions of Bayesianisin fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirming of scientific theories and hypotheses. By focusing on the need for a resolution to this impasse, Earman sharpens the issues on which a resolution turns. John Earman is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.
0262050463 0262050463 9780262050463 0262519003
Similar books and articles
Bayes' Bayesianism.John Earman - 1990 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (3):351-370.
John Earman's 'bayes or bust? A critical examination of bayesian confirmation theory' (book review). [REVIEW]David Christensen - 1994 - Philosophical Review 103 (2):345-347.
Book Reviews : John Earman, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992. Pp. xvi, 272. $35.00 (cloth. [REVIEW]Harold I. Brown - 1994 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24 (3):383-385.
Earman on the Projectibility of Grue.Marc Lange - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:87 - 95.
Bayes and Bust: Simplicity as a Problem for a Probabilist’s Approach to Confirmation. [REVIEW]Malcolm R. Forster - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (3):399-424.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Ontic Account of Scientific Explanation.Carl F. Craver - 2014 - In Marie I. Kaiser, Oliver R. Scholz, Daniel Plenge & Andreas Hüttemann (eds.), Explanation in the Special Sciences: The Case of Biology and History. Springer Verlag. pp. 27-52.
Inference to the Best explanation.Peter Lipton - 2004 - In Martin Curd & Stathis Psillos (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Routledge. pp. 193.
References found in this work
No references found.