Philosophy of Science 62 (2):241-260 (1995)
An amended bootstrapping can avoid Christensen's counterexamples. Earman and Edidin argue that Christensen's examples to bootstrapping rely on his failure to analyze background knowledge. I add an additional condition to bootstrapping that is motivated by Glymour's remarks on variety of evidence. I argue that it avoids the problems that the examples raise. I defend the modification against the charge that it is holistic, and that it collapses into Bayesianism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bootstrapping the Energy Flow in the Beginning of Life.R. Hengeveld & M. A. Fedonkin - 2007 - Acta Biotheoretica 55 (2):181-226.
Bootstrapping in Un-Natural Sciences: Archaeological Theory Testing.Alison Wylie - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:314 - 321.
Beyond the Building Blocks Model.Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (3):139-140.
Entitlement, Justification, and the Bootstrapping Problem.Jon Altschul - 2012 - Acta Analytica 27 (4):345-366.
Bootstrapping and Knowledge of Reliability.Anthony Brueckner & Christopher T. Buford - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (3):407–412.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #205,309 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,698 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?