What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need?

Philosophy of Science 53 (1):101 - 109 (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Clark Glymour defined bootstrap-confirmation as a three-place relation: “Evidence E bootstrap confirms hypothesis H with respect to theory T.“ By an ingenious choice of examples, David Christensen has shown that Glymour's definition is satisfied in a class of cases in which confirmation seems to be highly counterintuitive. Responding to Christensen's criticism, Glymour revised his 1980 definition of bootstrap confirmation, by introducing an additional condition that rules out Christensen's counterexamples.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
44 (#359,296)

6 months
8 (#351,446)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The irrelevance of bootstrapping.David Christensen - 1990 - Philosophy of Science 57 (4):644-662.
Toward a defensible bootstrapping.Sam Mitchell - 1995 - Philosophy of Science 62 (2):241-260.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Glymour on evidential relevance.David Christensen - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (3):471-481.
The axiomatization of physical theories.Herbert A. Simon - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (1):16-26.
Revisions of bootstrap testing.Clark Glymour - 1983 - Philosophy of Science 50 (4):626-629.
Ramsey eliminability and the testability of scientific theories.Herbert A. Simon & Guy J. Groen - 1973 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24 (4):367-380.
Fitness requirements for scientific theories.Herbert A. Simon - 1983 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (4):355-365.

Add more references