pp 1–41 | Cite as

Variety of Evidence

  • Jürgen LandesEmail author
Original Research


Varied evidence confirms more strongly than less varied evidence, ceteris paribus. This epistemological Variety of Evidence Thesis enjoys widespread intuitive support. We put forward a novel explication of one notion of varied evidence and the Variety of Evidence Thesis within Bayesian models of scientific inference by appealing to measures of entropy. Our explication of the Variety of Evidence Thesis holds in many of our models which also pronounce on disconfirmatory and discordant evidence. We argue that our models pronounce rightly. Against a backdrop of failures of the Variety of Evidence Thesis, the intuitive case for the Variety of Evidence Thesis emerges strengthened. Our models do however not support the general case for the thesis since our explication of it fails to hold in certain cases. The parameter space of this failure is explored and an explanation for the failure is offered.



I would like to thank Stephan Hartmann, Barbara Osimani, Roland Poellinger and Christian Wallmann for very helpful comments and discussions. Thanks are also due to George Pólya for teaching me about reasoning by analogy and the value of limiting cases, both of which were most helpful for devising proofs. This work is supported by the European Research Council (Philosophy of Pharmacology: Safety, Statistical standards and Evidence Amalgamation, grant 639276).


  1. Borm, G. F., Lemmers, O., Fransen, J., & Donders, R. (2009). The evidence provided by a single trial is less reliable than its statistical analysis suggests. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(7), 711–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2002). Bayesian networks and the problem of unreliable instruments. Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 29–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Claveau, F. (2011). Evidential variety as a source of credibility for causal inference: Beyond sharp designs and structural models. Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(3), 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claveau, F. (2013). The independence condition in the variety-of-evidence thesis. Philosophy of Science, 80(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claveau, F., & Grenier, O. (2018). The variety-of-evidence thesis: A Bayesian exploration of its surprising failures. Synthese. Scholar
  8. Colombo, M., Gervais, R., & Sprenger, J. (2017). Introduction: Objectivity in science. Synthese, 194(12), 4641–4642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crupi, V., Nelson, J., Meder, B., Cevolani, G., & Tentori, K. (2019). Generalized information theory meets human cognition: Introducing a unified framework to model uncertainty and information search.
  10. Csiszár, I. (2008). Axiomatic characterizations of information measures. Entropy, 10(3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawid, R., Hartmann, S., & Sprenger, J. (2015). The no alternatives argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 66(1), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Earman, J. (1992). Bayes or bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fitelson, B. (1996). Wayne, Horwich, and evidential diversity. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 652–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitelson, B. (2001). A bayesian account of independent evidence with applications. Philosophy of Science, 68(3), S123–S140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franklin, A., & Howson, C. (1984). Why do scientists prefer to vary their experiments? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 15(1), 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hartmann, S., & Bovens, L. (2001). The Variety-of-Evidence Thesis and the reliability of instruments: A Bayesian-network approach. PhilSci-Archive, last modified: 07 Oct 2010 15:10.Google Scholar
  18. Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Horwich, P. (1982). Probability and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Horwich, P. (1998). Wittgensteinian Bayesianism. In M. Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds.), Philosophy of science: The central issues (pp. 607–624). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  21. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  22. Hüffmeier, J., Mazei, J., & Schultze, T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keynes, J. M. (1921). A treatise on probability. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  24. Kuorikoski, J., & Marchionni, C. (2016). Evidential diversity and the triangulation of phenomena. Philosophy of Science, 83(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landes, J. (2018). Varied evidence and the elimination of hypotheses. Thought (submitted).Google Scholar
  26. Landes, J., & Osimani, B. (2018). Varieties of error and varieties of evidence. Philosophy of Science (submitted).Google Scholar
  27. Landes, J., Osimani, B., & Poellinger, R. (2018). Epistemology of causal inference in pharmacology. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 8(1), 3–49. Scholar
  28. Landes, J., & Williamson, J. (2013). Objective Bayesianism and the maximum entropy principle. Entropy, 15(9), 3528–3591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lloyd, E. A. (2015). Model robustness as a confirmatory virtue: The case of climate science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 49, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maxim, L. D., Niebo, R., & Utell, M. J. (2014). Screening tests: A review with examples. Inhalation Toxicology, 26(13), 811–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1(2), 108–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Myrvold, W. C. (1996). Bayesianism and diverse evidence: A reply to Andrew Wayne. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parkkinen, V.-P. (2016). Robustness and evidence of mechanisms in early experimental atherosclerosis research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 60, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality models, reasoning and inference (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perović, S., Radovanović, S., Sikimić, V., & Berber, A. (2016). Optimal research team composition: Data envelopment analysis of Fermilab experiments. Scientometrics, 108(1), 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perrin, J. (1924). Les Atomes. Libraire: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
  37. Poincaré, H. (1963). Mathematics and science: Last essays. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  38. Schupbach, J. N. (2015). Robustness, diversity of evidence, and probabilistic independence (pp. 305–316). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Schupbach, J. N. (2018). Robustness analysis as explanatory reasoning. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 275–300.Google Scholar
  40. Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steel, D. (1996). Bayesianism and the value of diverse evidence. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 666–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stegenga, J., & Menon, T. (2017). Robustness and independent evidence. Philosophy of Science, 84(3), 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tuomisto, H. (2010). A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia, 164(4), 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vezér, M. A. (2017). Variety-of-evidence reasoning about the distant past. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 7(2), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wayne, A. (1995). Bayesianism and diverse evidence. Philosophy of Science, 62(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MCMPLMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations