Authors
Richard Nunan
College of Charleston
Abstract
Bayesian confirmation theory, as traditionally interpreted, treats the temporal relationship between the formulation of a hypothesis and the confirmation (or recognition) of evidence entailed by that hypothesis merely as a component of the psychology of discovery and acceptance of a hypothesis. The temporal order of these events is irrelevant to the logic of rational theory choice. A few years ago Richmond Campbell and Thomas Vinci offered a reinterpretation of Bayes' Theorem in defense of the view that the temporal relationship between hypothesis and evidence really does matter. More specifically, they advocated the thesis that successful predictions implied by scientific hypothesis H will increase the degree of confirmation of H only if they are novel predictions in the following sense; Evidence E is heuristically novel with respect to hypothesis H if and only if H was not deliberately designed to explain E (if E has already been corroborated) or in anticipation of E (if E is regarded as likely to be corroborated at some future date). Campbell and Vinci argue that the traditional interpretation of Bayes' Theorem misconstrues the significance of predictive novelty by ignoring heuristic novelty. In this paper I review the formal component of their preferred interpretation and demonstrate that it fails to establish that heuristic novelty has any special effect on theory confirmation. That is, even on their revisionist interpretation, regardless of whether H was deliberately designed to explain known evidence E (or in anticipation of suspected E), or whether H was designed without any awareness of the entailment relationship between H and E, Bayes' Theorem will generate the same epistemic probability for hypothesis H. Cases where new evidence was not foreseen at the time a hypothesis first emerged do not carry any more epistemic weight than they would have if such evidence had been foreseen. * Research on this paper was supported by an NEH summer grant. My thanks also to Richmond Campbell and Thomas Vinci for their reply to my initial evaluation of their position (in private correspondence), which compelled me to reconsider their arguments more carefully.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/44.1.17
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Foundations of Scientific Inference.Wesley Salmon - 1966 - University of Pittsburgh Press.
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.Imre Lakatos - 1970 - In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-196.
Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's? (I).Elie Zahar - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):95-123.
Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's? (II).Elie Zahar - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (3):223-262.
Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.Alan Musgrave - 1974 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (1):1-23.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations.Aysel Dogan - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):243 - 259.
Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations.Aysel Dogan - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):243-259.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Challenges to Bayesian Confirmation Theory.John D. Norton - 2011 - In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm R. Forster (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7: Philosophy of Statistics. Elsevier B.V.. pp. 391-440.
Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations.Aysel Dogan - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):243 - 259.
Confirmation Theory.James Hawthorne - 2011 - In Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay & Malcolm Forster (eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 7: Philosophy of Statistics. Elsevier.
Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery.Patrick Maher - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:273 - 285.
Causation, Association, and Confirmation.Gregory Wheeler & Richard Scheines - 2010 - In Stephan Hartmann, Marcel Weber, Wenceslao Gonzalez, Dennis Dieks & Thomas Uebe (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation: New Trends and Old Ones Reconsidered. Springer. pp. 37--51.
Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism.Colin Howson & Allan Franklin - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (4):574-585.
Accommodation, Prediction and Bayesian Confirmation Theory.Colin Howson - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:381 - 392.
On Novel Confirmation.James A. Kahn, Steven E. Landsburg & Alan C. Stockman - 1992 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (4):503-516.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
36 ( #299,940 of 2,448,668 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #447,034 of 2,448,668 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes