Synthese 195 (4):1631-1648 (2018)

William Roche
Texas Christian University
Bayesian confirmation theory is rife with confirmation measures. Many of them differ from each other in important respects. It turns out, though, that all the standard confirmation measures in the literature run counter to the so-called “Reverse Matthew Effect” (“RME” for short). Suppose, to illustrate, that H1 and H2 are equally successful in predicting E in that p(E | H1)/p(E) = p(E | H2)/p(E) > 1. Suppose, further, that initially H1 is less probable than H2 in that p(H1) < p(H2). Then by RME it follows that the degree to which E confirms H1 is greater than the degree to which it confirms H2. But by all the standard confirmation measures in the literature, in contrast, it follows that the degree to which E confirms H1 is less than or equal to the degree to which it confirms H2. It might seem, then, that RME should be rejected as implausible. Festa (2012), however, argues that there are scientific contexts in which RME holds. If Festa’s argument is sound, it follows that there are scientific contexts in which none of the standard confirmation measures in the literature is adequate. Festa’s argument is thus interesting, important, and deserving of careful examination. I consider five distinct respects in which E can be related to H, use them to construct five distinct ways of understanding confirmation measures, which I call “Increase in Probability”, “Partial Dependence”, “Partial Entailment”, “Partial Discrimination”, and “Popper Corroboration”, and argue that each such way runs counter to RME. The result is that it is not at all clear that there is a place in Bayesian confirmation theory for RME.
Keywords Bayesian confirmation theory  Confirmation  Festa  Increase in probability  Partial dependence  Partial discrimination  Partial entailment  Popper  Corroboration  Reverse Matthew Effect
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1286-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual.Elliott Sober - 2015 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Dwindling Confirmation.William Roche & Tomoji Shogenji - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (1):114-137.
Bayesian Confirmation: A Means with No End.Peter Brössel & Franz Huber - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4):737-749.
Bayesian Measures of Confirmation From Scoring Rules.Steven J. van Enk - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (1):101-113.
Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory.Branden Fitelson - 2001 - Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Models and Inferences in Science.Richard Dawid - 2016 - In Emiliano Ippoliti, Thomas Nickles & Fabio Sterpetti (eds.), Models and Inferences in Science. Springer. pp. 191-205.
Does Information Inform Confirmation?Colin Howson - 2016 - Synthese 193 (7):2307-2321.
On Ratio Measures of Confirmation: Critical Remarks on Zalabardo’s Argument for the Likelihood-Ratio Measure.Valeriano Iranzo & Ignacio Martínez de Lejarza - 2013 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 44 (1):193-200.


Added to PP index

Total views
169 ( #69,400 of 2,506,495 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #51,709 of 2,506,495 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes