Bradford (1992)

Authors
John Earman
University of Pittsburgh
Abstract
There is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. Both Bayesians and anti-Bayesians will find a wealth of new insights on topics ranging from Bayes's original paper to contemporary formal learning theory. In a paper published posthumously in 1763, the Reverend Thomas Bayes made a seminal contribution to the understanding of "analogical or inductive reasoning." Building on his insights, modem Bayesians have developed an account of scientific inference that has attracted numerous champions as well as numerous detractors. Earman argues that Bayesianism provides the best hope for a comprehensive and unified account of scientific inference, yet the presently available versions of Bayesianisin fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirming of scientific theories and hypotheses. By focusing on the need for a resolution to this impasse, Earman sharpens the issues on which a resolution turns. John Earman is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.
Keywords Bayes, Thomas   Bayesian statistical decision theory   Science   Inference
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy this book $19.99 new (43% off)   $24.99 used (29% off)   $28.52 from Amazon (19% off)   Amazon page
ISBN(s) 0262050463   0262050463   9780262050463   0262519003
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
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

Epistemic Permissiveness.Roger White - 2005 - Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):445–459.
What Conditional Probability Could Not Be.Alan Hájek - 2003 - Synthese 137 (3):273--323.
The Ontic Account of Scientific Explanation.Carl F. Craver - 2014 - In Marie I. Kaiser, Oliver R. Scholz, Daniel Plenge & Andreas Hüttemann (eds.), Explanation in the Special Sciences: The Case of Biology and History. Springer Verlag. pp. 27-52.
The Structure of Epistemic Probabilities.Nevin Climenhaga - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3213-3242.

View all 382 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bayes' Bayesianism.John Earman - 1990 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 21 (3):351-370.
Earman on the Projectibility of Grue.Marc Lange - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:87 - 95.
Reason, Judgement and Bayes's Law.Harold I. Brown - 1994 - Philosophy of Science 61 (3):351-369.
Bayes and Beyond.Geoffrey Hellman - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-08-21

Total views
23 ( #492,728 of 2,506,363 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,990 of 2,506,363 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes