PhilSci Archive

How Explanation Guides Confirmation

Climenhaga, Nevin (2016) How Explanation Guides Confirmation. Philosophy of Science.

[img]
Preview
Text
Climenhaga, How Explanation Guides Confirmation.pdf

Download (380kB) | Preview

Abstract

Where E is the proposition that [If H and O were true, H would explain O], William Roche and Elliot Sober have argued that P(H|O&E) = P(H|O). In this paper I argue that not only is this equality not generally true, it is false in the very kinds of cases that Roche and Sober focus on, involving frequency data. In fact, in such cases O raises the probability of H only given that there is an explanatory connection between them.


Export/Citation: EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
Social Networking:
Share |

Item Type: Published Article or Volume
Creators:
CreatorsEmailORCID
Climenhaga, Nevinnclimenh@nd.edu
Keywords: Bayesianism Confirmation Evidence Explanation Inference to the Best Explanation Probability William Roche Elliott Sober
Subjects: General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
General Issues > Explanation
Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics
Depositing User: Nevin Climenhaga
Date Deposited: 17 Jan 2017 15:22
Last Modified: 17 Jan 2017 15:22
Item ID: 12755
Journal or Publication Title: Philosophy of Science
Official URL: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/6...
DOI or Unique Handle: 10.1086/690723
Subjects: General Issues > Confirmation/Induction
General Issues > Explanation
Specific Sciences > Probability/Statistics
Date: 2016
URI: https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12755

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Altmetric.com

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item