Milne’s Argument for the Log‐Ratio Measure

Philosophy of Science 75 (4):413-420 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article shows that a slight variation of the argument in Milne 1996 yields the log‐likelihood ratio l rather than the log‐ratio measure r as “the one true measure of confirmation. ” *Received December 2006; revised December 2007. †To contact the author, please write to: Formal Epistemology Research Group, Zukunftskolleg and Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, P.O. Box X906, 78457 Konstanz, Germany; e‐mail: franz.huber@uni‐konstanz.de

Similar books and articles

How Bad Is Rape?H. E. Baber - 1987 - Hypatia 2 (2):125-138.
The Hiddenness Argument Revisited.J. L. Schellenberg - 2005 - Religious Studies 41 (3):287-303.
Shifting Frames: From Divided to Distributed Psychologies of Scientific Agents.Peter J. Taylor - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:304-310.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
442 (#43,979)

6 months
86 (#55,264)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Franz Huber
University of Toronto, St. George Campus

References found in this work

A nonpragmatic vindication of probabilism.James M. Joyce - 1998 - Philosophy of Science 65 (4):575-603.
Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory.Branden Fitelson - 2001 - Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Probability, Frequency and Reasonable Expectation.Richard T. Cox - 1946 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 37 (2):398-399.

View all 12 references / Add more references