Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:31:08.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Irrelevance of Bootstrapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David Christensen
David Christensen*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Vermont
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main appeal of the currently popular “bootstrap” account of confirmation developed by Clark Glymour is that it seems to provide an account of evidential relevance. This account has, however, had severe problems; and Glymour has revised his original account in an attempt to solve them. I argue that this attempt fails completely, and that any similar modifications must also fail. If the problems can be solved, it will only be by radical revisions which involve jettisoning bootstrapping's basic approach to theories. Finally, I argue that there is little reason to think that even such drastic modifications will lead to a satisfactory account of relevance.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 1990, pp. 644 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

This paper benefited from discussions or correspondence with James R. Christensen, Clark Glymour, Thomas R. Grimes, Richard Healey, Arthur Kuflik, William E. Mann, and Derk Pereboom.

References

Christensen, D. (1983), “Glymour on Evidential Relevance”, Philosophy of Science 50: 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J., and Glymour, C. (1988), “What Revisions does Bootstrap Testing Need? A Reply”, Philosophy of Science 55: 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edidin, A. (1981), “Glymour on Confirmation”, Philosophy of Science 48: 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edidin, A. (1988), “From Relative Confirmation to Real Confirmation”, Philosophy of Science 55: 265–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallo, R. C., Shaw, G. M., and Markham, P. D. (1985), “The Etiology of AIDS”, in V. T. DeVita, Jr., S. Hellman and S. A. Rosenberg (eds.), AIDS: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention. Philadelphia: Lipincott.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1983a), “Revisions of Bootstrap Testing”, Philosophy of Science 50: 626–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1983b), “On Testing and Evidence”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10: 3–26.Google Scholar
Grimes, T. R. (1987), “The Promiscuity of Bootstrapping”, Philosophical Studies 51: 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, P. (1983), “Explanations of Irrelevance”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10: 55–65.Google Scholar
Waters, C. K. (1987), “Relevance Logic Brings Hope to Hypothetico-Deductivism”, Philosophy of Science 54: 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Żytkow, J. M. (1986), “What Revisions does Bootstrap Testing Need?”, Philosophy of Science 53: 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar