Kent Staley has written a clear and engaging introduction to PhilSci that manages to blend the central key topics of philosophy of science with current philosophy of statistics. Quite possibly, Staley explains Error Statistics more clearly in many ways than I do in his 10 page section, 9.4. CONGRATULATIONS STALEY*
You can get this book for free by merely writing one of the simpler palindrome’s in the December contest.
Here’s an excerpt from that section:
9.4 Error-statistical philosophy of science and severe testing
Deborah Mayo has developed an alternative approach to the interpretation of frequentist statistical inference (Mayo 1996). But the idea at the heart of Mayo’s approach is one that can be stated without invoking probability at all. ….
Mayo takes the following “minimal scientific principle for evidence” to be uncontroversial:
Principle 3 (Minimal principle for evidence) Data xo provide poor evidence for H if they result from a method or procedure that has little or no ability of finding flaws in H, even if H is false.(Mayo and Spanos, 2009, 3)
Philosophical accounts of scientific reasoning have, however, generally failed to satisfy this principle. Philosophers of science have constructed theories of evidence that divorce consideration of the evidential import of data from consideration of the methods used to generate those data. Mayo argues that we should reject the project of the logical positivists that aimed to allow one, for any data or observation E, to calculate the degree of support or confirmation afforded to any hypothesis H. We should not, however, abandon the ideals of neutrality and objectivity themselves. An account of scientific reasoning that respects Principle 3 will better promote these ideals by emphasizing that reliable inferences from data require consideration of the properties of the method that produced them. (Staley 2014, pp. 153-4)
NOTE: Note: This post was accidentally put up before its time, while still incomplete. It was thought to be merely on draft; it seems the new improved WordPress has a mind of its own. Sorry Kent.