Dawid, Richard and Hartmann, Stephan and Sprenger, Jan (2013) The No Alternatives Argument. [Preprint]
This is the latest version of this item.
NAA_final.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Scientific theories are hard to find, and once scientists have found a theory H, they often believe that there are not many distinct alternatives to H. But is this belief justified? What should scientists believe about the number of alternatives to H, and how should they change these beliefs in the light of new evidence? These are some of the questions that we will address in this paper. We also ask under which conditions failure to find an alternative to H confirms the theory in question. This kind of reasoning (which we call the No Alternatives Argument) is frequently used in science and therefore deserves a careful philosophical analysis.
|Export/Citation:||EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL|
|Additional Information:||The paper will appear in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.|
|Keywords:||Confirmation theory, evidence, underdetermination|
|Subjects:||General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics
General Issues > Theory/Observation
|Depositing User:||Stephan Hartmann|
|Date Deposited:||25 Feb 2013 13:16|
|Last Modified:||25 Feb 2013 13:16|
Available Versions of this Item
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Actions (login required)