6334 (Q-0)


(Q-0) Practice (not to be collected)

  • What is Bayesian confirmation theory (Bayesian epistemology)? What is Bayes’ theorem?
  • What is “confirmation” on Fitelson’s account?
  • What is the problem of irrelevant conjunction (tacking paradox)?
  • What is the argument (Glymour) that if x confirms some hypothesis H, then x confirms any J?
  • How does Fitelson (Fitelson and Hawthorne) avoid this conclusion? Discuss.
  • Why does Popper’s example show (or seem to show) that confirmation cannot be a probability?

October 19, and 25 (2013) blog: errorstatistics.com

https://errorstatistics.com/2013/10/19/bayesian-confirmation-philosophy-and-the-tacking-paradox-in-i/

https://errorstatistics.com/2013/10/25/bayesian-confirmation-theory-example-from-last-post/

(You may also mention Crupi and Tentori’s result)

1 Comment

One thought on “6334 (Q-0)

  1. You ought to take part in a contest for one of the best sites on the internet.

    I most certainly will recommend this website!

I welcome constructive comments that are of relevance to the post and the discussion, and discourage detours into irrelevant topics, however interesting, or unconstructive declarations that "you (or they) are just all wrong". If you want to correct or remove a comment, send me an e-mail. If readers have already replied to the comment, you may be asked to replace it to retain comprehension.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.