Confirmation and chaos

Philosophy of Science 69 (2):256-265 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Recently, Rueger and Sharp (1996) and Koperski (1998) have been concerned to show that certain procedural accounts of model confirmation are compromised by nonā€linear dynamics. We suggest that the issues raised are better approached by considering whether chaotic data analysis methods allow for reliable inference from data. We provide a framework and an example of this approach.

Similar books and articles

Glymour on confirmation.Aron Edidin - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (2):292-307.
Models, confirmation, and chaos.Jeffrey Koperski - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (4):624-648.
From relative confirmation to real confirmation.Aron Edidin - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (2):265-271.
Subjective and objective confirmation.Patrick Maher - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (2):149-174.
Confirmation of ecological and evolutionary models.Elisabeth A. Lloyd - 1987 - Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):277-293.
What Is the Point of Confirmation?Franz Huber - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1146-1159.
Choosing between confirmation theories.R. G. Swinburne - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (4):602-613.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
184 (#102,805)

6 months
60 (#69,764)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Maralee Harrell
University of California, San Diego
Clark Glymour
Carnegie Mellon University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Theory and Evidence.Clark Glymour - 1980 - Ethics 93 (3):613-615.
The Logic of Reliable Inquiry.Kevin Kelly - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2):351-354.

Add more references