Review: Response to Glymour [Book Review]

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):857 - 860 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,571

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Response to Glymour. [REVIEW]Jon Williamson - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):857-860.
Glymour on confirmation.Aron Edidin - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (2):292-307.
Jon Williamson bayesian nets and causality.Clark Glymour - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):849-855.
Glymour on deoccamization and the epistemology of geometry.Jane Duran - 1989 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (1):127-134.
Glymour on evidential relevance.David Christensen - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (3):471-481.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
9 (#1,246,025)

6 months
4 (#779,649)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jon Williamson
University of Kent

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Interpreting causality in the health sciences.Federica Russo & Jon Williamson - 2007 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (2):157 – 170.
Probabilistic Theories.Jon Williamson - 2009 - In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock & Peter Menzies (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford University Press.
What Is Wrong With Bayes Nets?Nancy Cartwright - 2001 - The Monist 84 (2):242-264.
Dispositional versus epistemic causality.Jon Williamson - 2006 - Minds and Machines 16 (3):259-276.

View all 7 references / Add more references