Some Recent Fallacies of Approximation in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Abstract

• Several recent Bayesian discussions make use of “approximation” – Earman on the Quantitative Old Evidence Problem – Vranas on Quantitative Approaches to the Ravens Paradox – Dorling’s Quantitative Approach to Duhem–Quine – Strevens’s Quantitative Approach to Duhem–Quine – rThere are also examples not involving confirmation: E.g.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Bayesian confirmation and auxiliary hypotheses revisited: A reply to Strevens.Branden Fitelson & Andrew Waterman - 2005 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):293-302.
An objective Bayesian account of confirmation.Jon Williamson - 2011 - In Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao Gonzalo, Thomas Uebel, Stephan Hartmann & Marcel Weber (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation. Springer. pp. 53--81.
Geometry of logic and truth approximation.Thomas Mormann - 2005 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):431-454.
Bayes and beyond.Geoffrey Hellman - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (2):191-221.
A bayesian account of independent evidence with applications.Branden Fitelson - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S123-.
The Wason task(s) and the paradox of confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2010 - Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):207-241.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-22

Downloads
44 (#344,726)

6 months
1 (#1,459,555)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Branden Fitelson
Northeastern University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references