Advertisement

Explanation pp 121-136 | Cite as

Reflections of a Bashful Bayesian: A Reply to Peter Lipton

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 302)

Abstract

I am amazed by the degree to which Peter Lipton’s gentle irenic approach has lessened, if not eliminated, the gap between us. Prior to this discussion, we both agreed on certain fundamental points. (1) Both of us rejected the doctrine, enunciated by Gilbert Harman [Harman 1965], that all forms of nondemonstrative inference fall under the rubric of Inference to the Best Explanation. (2) We agreed that the Hypothetico-Deductive method is fatally flawed as a characterization of scientific confirmation. (3) We agree basically — though there may be some differences of detail — about the problems associated with Induction by Simple Enumeration. (4) Both of us considered Carl G. Hempel’s [Hempel 1965] Deductive-Nomological model an unsatisfactory characterization of scientific explanation. (5) Nevertheless, we agreed on the crucial importance of Hempel’s distinction between potential and actual explanations. (6) We agreed that, when scientists embrace hypotheses or theories, they have more than confirmation in mind; they are also concerned with informational content [Hempel 1965] p.23. This particular point will turn out to have immense import in our discussion; in fact, in my view it is the primary locus of our residual differences.

Keywords

Prior Probability Scientific Explanation Elliptical Orbit Informational Content Dutch Book 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Carnap 1950]
    Carnap, R., (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. [Day and Kincaid 1994]
    Day, T, and Kincaid, H. (1994). “Putting Inference to the Best Explanation in its Place,” Synthese, 98: 271–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Gillespie 1970–76]
    Gillespie, C., (ed.), (1970–76). Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 14 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  4. [Halley 1947]
    Halley, E. (1947). “The Ode Dedicated to Newton by Edmund Halley,” in F. Cajori, (trans.), Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. [Harman 1965]
    Harman, G., (1965). “Inference to the Best Explanation,” Philosophical Review, 74: 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Hempel 1965]
    Hempel, C., (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. [Kuhn 1977]
    Kuhn, T., (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. [Laplace 1951]
    Laplace, P. S., (1951). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  9. [Lipton 1991]
    Lipton, P., (1991). Inference to the Best Explanation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. [Maran 1992]
    Maran, S., (ed.), (1992). Astronomy and Astrophysics Encyclopedia. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  11. [Nye 1972]
    Nye, M. J., (1972). Molecular Reality. London: Macdonald.Google Scholar
  12. [Pearson 1957]
    Pearson, K., (1957). The Grammar of Science, 3rd ed. New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar
  13. [Salmon 1998]
    Salmon, W., (1998). Causality and Explanation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Weinberg 1994]
    Weinberg, S., (1994). Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations