1.  90
    Model Structure Adequacy Analysis: Selecting Models on the Basis of Their Ability to Answer Scientific Questions.Mark L. Taper, David F. Staples & Bradley B. Shepard - 2008 - Synthese 163 (3):357-370.
    Models carry the meaning of science. This puts a tremendous burden on the process of model selection. In general practice, models are selected on the basis of their relative goodness of fit to data penalized by model complexity. However, this may not be the most effective approach for selecting models to answer a specific scientific question because model fit is sensitive to all aspects of a model, not just those relevant to the question. Model Structural Adequacy analysis is proposed as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  2.  17
    Non-Bayesian Accounts of Evidence: Howson’s Counterexample Countered.Gordon Brittan, Mark L. Taper & Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay - 2016 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 30 (3):291-298.
    There is a debate in Bayesian confirmation theory between subjective and non-subjective accounts of evidence. Colin Howson has provided a counterexample to our non-subjective account of evidence: the counterexample refers to a case in which there is strong evidence for a hypothesis, but the hypothesis is highly implausible. In this article, we contend that, by supposing that strong evidence for a hypothesis makes the hypothesis more believable, Howson conflates the distinction between confirmation and evidence. We demonstrate that Howson’s counterexample fails (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Statistical Inference and the Plethora of Probability Paradigms: A Principled Pluralism.Mark L. Taper, Gordon Brittan Jr & Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay - manuscript
    The major competing statistical paradigms share a common remarkable but unremarked thread: in many of their inferential applications, different probability interpretations are combined. How this plays out in different theories of inference depends on the type of question asked. We distinguish four question types: confirmation, evidence, decision, and prediction. We show that Bayesian confirmation theory mixes what are intuitively “subjective” and “objective” interpretations of probability, whereas the likelihood-based account of evidence melds three conceptions of what constitutes an “objective” probability.
    Direct download  
    Export citation