Reply to Crupi et al.’s ‘Confirmation by Uncertain Evidence’

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (2):213-215 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Crupi et al. propose a generalization of Bayesian confirmation theory that they claim to adequately deal with confirmation by uncertain evidence. Consider a series of points of time t0, . . . , ti, . . . , tn such that the agent’s subjective probability for an atomic proposition E changes from Pr0 at t0 to . . . to Pri at ti to . . . to Prn at tn. It is understood that the agent’s subjective probabilities change for E and no logically stronger proposition, and that the agent updates her subjective probabilities by Jeffrey conditionalization. For this specific scenario the authors propose to take the difference between Pr0 and Pri as the degree to which E confirms H for the agent at time ti , C0,i. This proposal is claimed to be adequate, because.

Similar books and articles

Does information inform confirmation?Colin Howson - 2016 - Synthese 193 (7):2307-2321.
Subjective and objective confirmation.Patrick Maher - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (2):149-174.
Three models of sequential belief updating on uncertain evidence.James Hawthorne - 2004 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 33 (1):89-123.
Confirmation of scientific hypotheses as relations.Aysel Dogan - 2005 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):243 - 259.
Maher, mendeleev and bayesianism.Colin Howson & Allan Franklin - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (4):574-585.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
320 (#60,973)

6 months
58 (#73,829)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Franz Huber
University of Toronto, St. George Campus

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations