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: 91,202

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

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.
Review: Response to Glymour. [REVIEW]Jon Williamson - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):857 - 860.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-11-21

Downloads
41 (#369,691)

6 months
8 (#292,366)

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.
What Is Wrong With Bayes Nets?Nancy Cartwright - 2001 - The Monist 84 (2):242-264.
Probabilistic theories of causality.Jon Williamson - 2009 - In Helen Beebee, Peter Menzies & Christopher Hitchcock (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Causation. Oxford University Press. pp. 185--212.

View all 10 references / Add more references