Measurement of Statistical Evidence: Picking Up Where Hacking Left Off

Abstract

Hacking’s Law of Likelihood says – paraphrasing– that data support hypothesis H1 over hypothesis H2 whenever the likelihood ratio for H1 over H2 exceeds 1. But Hacking noted a seemingly fatal flaw in the LR itself: it cannot be interpreted as the degree of “evidential significance” across applications. I agree with Hacking about the problem, but I don’t believe the condition is incurable. I argue here that the LR can be properly calibrated with respect to the underlying evidence, and I sketch the rudiments of a methodology for so doing.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-07-18

Downloads
12 (#1,093,652)

6 months
1 (#1,722,083)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Veronica J. Vieland
Ohio State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references