From Evidential Support to a Measure of Corroboration

Authors
Jan Sprenger
University of Turin
Abstract
According to influential accounts of scientific method, e.g., critical rationalism, scientific knowledge grows by repeatedly testing our best hypotheses. In comparison to rivaling accounts of scientific reasoning such as Bayesianism, these accounts are closer to crucial aspects of scientific practice. But despite the preeminence of hypothesis tests in statistical inference, their philosophical foundations are shaky. In particular, the interpretation of "insignificant results"---outcomes where the tested hypothesis has survived the test---poses a major epistemic challenge that is not sufficiently addressed by the standard methodology for conducting such tests. In this paper, I argue that a quantitative explication of degree of corroboration can fill this important methodological and epistemological gap. First, I argue that this concept is distinct from the Bayesian notion of evidential support and that it plays an independent role in scientific reasoning. Second, I demonstrate that degree of corroboration cannot be suitably explicated in a probabilistic relevance framework, as proposed by Popper. Third, I derive two measures of corroboration that possess a large number of attractive properties, establish an insightful relation between corroboration and evidential support and are not committed to a Bayesian or a frequentist framework. In sum, the paper rethinks the foundations of inductive inference by providing a novel logic of hypothesis testing.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 38,086
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

The Big Test of Corroboration.Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):293 – 302.
Ein Erkenntnismodell Des Nikolaus Von Kues Und der Grad der Bewährung Einer Wissenschaftlichen Hypothese.Otto-Joachim Grüsser - 1988 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 19 (2):232-238.
Popper's Measure of Corroboration and P(H|B).Darrell Patrick Rowbottom - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (4):axs029.
On Popper’s Strong Inductivism.José A. Díez - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (1):105-116.
Précis of Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity, and Utility.Siu L. Chow - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):169-194.
Further Results on the Intransitivity of Evidential Support.Igor Douven - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (4):487-497.
Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory.Branden Fitelson - 2001 - Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-07

Total views
12 ( #503,328 of 2,313,333 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #535,322 of 2,313,333 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature