[1 − p(X, z)][1 − p(y, z)]/p(y, z) if p(y, z) >

Abstract
The burden of this theorem, stated informally, is that when a hypothesis h is maximally independent of the evidence — that is, it goes wholly beyond the evidence —, then the probability p(h, e) increases when the evidence e is weakened; and hence, the weaker is the evidence, the greater is the probabilistic support.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,133
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
Contentious Contents: For Inductive Probability.Andrew Elby - 1994 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):193-200.
Stronger Evidence.Peter Achinstein - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (3):329-350.
Evidence and Ethics in Occupational Therapy.Justine Shaw & David Shaw - 2011 - British Journal of Occupational Therapy 74 (5):254-256.
Old Evidence and New Explanation.Carl G. Wagner - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (4):677-691.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
30 ( #175,370 of 2,191,821 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #288,547 of 2,191,821 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature