Confirmation Measures and Sensitivity

Philosophy of Science 82 (5):892-904 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Stanley Stevens draws a useful distinction among ordinal scales, interval scales, and ratio scales. Most recent discussions of confirmation measures have proceeded on the ordinal level of analysis. In this article, I give a more quantitative analysis. In particular, I show that the requirement that our desired confirmation measure be at least an interval measure naturally yields necessary conditions that jointly entail the log-likelihood measure. Thus, I conclude that the log-likelihood measure is the only good candidate interval measure.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

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.
Bayesian Measures of Confirmation from Scoring Rules.Steven J. van Enk - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (1):101-113.
Focused correlation and confirmation.Gregory Wheeler - 2009 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (1):79-100.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-07

Downloads
51 (#306,042)

6 months
15 (#159,128)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Measuring confirmation.David Christensen - 1999 - Journal of Philosophy 96 (9):437-461.
New Axioms for Probability and Likelihood Ratio Measures.Vincenzo Crupi, Nick Chater & Katya Tentori - 2013 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (1):189-204.

View all 8 references / Add more references