The Book of EvidenceWhat is required for something to be evidence for a hypothesis? In this fascinating, elegantly written work, distinguished philosopher of science Peter Achinstein explores this question, rejecting typical philosophical and statistical theories of evidence. He claims these theories are much too weak to give scientists what they want--a good reason to believe--and, in some cases, they furnish concepts that mistakenly make all evidential claims a priori. Achinstein introduces four concepts of evidence, defines three of them by reference to "potential" evidence, and characterizes the latter using a novel epistemic interpretation of probability. The resulting theory is then applied to philosophical and historical issues. Solutions are provided to the "grue," "ravens," "lottery," and "old-evidence" paradoxes, and to a series of questions. These include whether explanations or predictions furnish more evidential weight, whether individual hypotheses or entire theoretical systems can receive evidential support, what counts as a scientific discovery, and what sort of evidence is required for it. The historical questions include whether Jean Perrin had non-circular evidence for the existence of molecules, what type of evidence J. J. Thomson offered for the existence of the electron, and whether, as is usually supposed, he really discovered the electron. Achinstein proposes answers in terms of the concepts of evidence introduced. As the premier book in the fabulous new series Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science, this volume is essential for philosophers of science and historians of science, as well as for statisticians, scientists with philosophical interests, and anyone curious about scientific reasoning. |
Avis des internautes - Rédiger un commentaire
Aucun commentaire n'a été trouvé aux emplacements habituels.
Table des matières
| 3 | |
| 13 | |
| 44 | |
| 69 | |
| 95 | |
6 Evidence High Probability and Belief | 114 |
7 The Explanatory Connection | 145 |
8 Final Definitions and Realism | 168 |
Ravens and Grue | 185 |
Which Carries More Evidential Weight? | 210 |
11 OldAge and NewAge Holism | 231 |
Jean Perrin and Molecular Reality | 243 |
13 Who Really Discovered the Electron? | 266 |
Index | 287 |
Autres éditions - Tout afficher
Out of the Ordinary: Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Associates ... David Bruce Brownlee,Robert Venturi,Denise Scott Brown Aucun aperçu disponible - 2001 |
Expressions et termes fréquents
argument assumption atoms Avogadro's believe h bleen Brownian motion Carnap cathode rays chapter concept of evidence condition confidence confirm confirmation connection between h counterexamples defined definition of evidence deflection degree of belief degree of reasonableness dence depends determine discovery e is evidence electrical emeralds empirical epistemic probability epistemic situation ES-evidence evidence that h example experimental results experiments explanation explanatory connection fact false first flawed given grue h is true h's probability Hertz high probability holism hypothesis h justified in believing land heads lottery Maher microconditions nonblack things nonravens objective epistemic observed obtain particles Perrin Peter Achinstein potential and veridical potential evidence prediction priori probabilistic probability of h propensity proposition question ravens reason to believe relative frequency relativized requires satisfied saves the phenomena scientific scientists selection procedure sense subjective evidence sufficient Suppose symptoms theory Thomson threshold tickets tion toss truth veridical evidence Wheaties
Fréquemment cités
Page 283 - As the cathode rays carry a charge of negative electricity, are deflected by an electrostatic force as if they were negatively electrified, and are acted on by a magnetic force in just the way in which this force would act on a negatively electrified body moving along the path of these rays, I can see no escape from the conclusion that they are charges of negative electricity carried by particles of matter.
Page 231 - A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute....
Page 277 - Thus for the carriers of the electricity in the cathode rays m/e is very small compared with its value in electrolysis. The smallness of m/e may be due to the smallness of m or the largeness of e, or to a combination of these two. That the carriers of the charges in the cathode rays are small compared with ordinary molecules is shown, I think, by Lenard's results as to the rate at which the brightness of the phosphorescence produced by these rays diminishes with the length of path travelled by the...
Page 276 - The question next arises, What are these particles? are they atoms, or molecules, or matter in a still finer state of subdivision? To throw some light on this point, I have made a series of measurements of the ratio of the mass of these particles to the charge carried by it.
Page 108 - In the application of inductive logic to a given knowledge situation, the total evidence available must be taken as basis for determining the degree of confirmation.
Page 273 - That is a mystery, as all matter is ; the luminiferous ether is no greater mystery. We know the luminiferous ether better than we know any other kind of matter in some particulars ; we know it in respect to the constancy of the velocity of propagation of light of different periods (p.
Page 15 - ... on repeating this experiment I at first got the same result, but subsequent experiments showed that the absence of deflexion is due to the conductivity conferred on the rarefied gas by the cathode rays. On measuring this conductivity it was...
