I contrast two modes of error-elimination relevant to evaluating evidence in accounts that emphasize frequentist reliability. The contrast corresponds to that between the use of of a reliable inference procedure and the critical scrutiny of a procedure with regard to its reliability, in light of what is and is not known about the setting in which the procedure is used. I propose a notion of security as a category of evidential assessment for the latter. In statistical settings, robustness theory and misspecification testing exemplify two distinct strategies for securing statistical inferences.
|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
What Experiment Did We Just Do? Counterfactual Error Statistics and Uncertainties About the Reference Class.Kent W. Staley - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (2):279-299.
Robust Evidence and Secure Evidence Claims.Kent W. Staley - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (4):467-488.
Agency and Objectivity in the Search for the Top Qjjark.Kent W. Staley - 2005 - In P. Achinstein (ed.), Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories & Applications. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Error-Statistical Elimination of Alternative Hypotheses.Kent Staley - 2008 - Synthese 163 (3):397 - 408.
Severe Testing as a Basic Concept in a Neyman–Pearson Philosophy of Induction.Deborah G. Mayo & Aris Spanos - 2006 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2):323-357.
Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism.Kent Staley - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Strategies for Securing Evidence Through Model Criticism.Kent W. Staley - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):21-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads118 ( #41,602 of 2,171,911 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #326,614 of 2,171,911 )
How can I increase my downloads?