Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:04:29.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Colin Howson  and
Allan Franklin
Colin Howson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method London School of Economics
Allan Franklin
Affiliation:
Department of Physics University of Colorado
*
†Send reprint requests to Allan Franklin, Department of Physics, Campus Box 390, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maher (1988, 1990) has recently argued that the way a hypothesis is generated can affect its confirmation by the available evidence, and that Bayesian confirmation theory can explain this. In particular, he argues that evidence known at the time a theory was proposed does not confirm the theory as much as it would had that evidence been discovered after the theory was proposed. We examine Maher's arguments for this “predictivist” position and conclude that they do not, in fact, support his view. We also cast doubt on the assumptions of Maher's alleged Bayesian proofs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 574 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

References

Franklin, A. and Howson, C. (1985), “Newton and Kepler, A Bayesian Approach”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, C. (1989), “Accommodation, Prediction and Bayesian Confirmation Theory”, PSA 1988, vol. 2. Edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 381–392.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Franklin, A. (1985), “A Bayesian Analysis of Excess Content and the Localisation of Support”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36: 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. ([1921] 1973), A Treatise on Probability, vol. 8. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Maher, P. (1988), “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery”, PSA 1988, vol. 1. Edited by A. Fine and J. Leplin. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 273–285.Google Scholar
Maher, P. (1990), “How Prediction Enhances Confirmation”, in M. Dunn and A. Gupta, (eds.), Truth or Consequences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1974), “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ne'eman, Y. and Kirsh, Y. (1986), The Particle Hunters. Updated version. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. and Miller, D. W. (1983), “A Proof of the Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature 302: 687–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar