Find out how to access previewonly content
Date:
08 Feb 2011
Strategies for securing evidence through model criticism
 Kent W. Staley
 … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get AccessAbstract
Some accounts of evidence regard it as an objective relationship holding between data and hypotheses, perhaps mediated by a testing procedure. Mayo’s errorstatistical theory of evidence is an example of such an approach. Such a view leaves open the question of when an epistemic agent is justified in drawing an inference from such data to a hypothesis. Using Mayo’s account as an illustration, I propose a framework for addressing the justification question via a relativized notion, which I designate security, meant to conceptualize practices aimed at the justification of inferences from evidence. I then show how the notion of security can be put to use by showing how two quite different theoretical approaches to model criticism in statistics can both be viewed as strategies for securing claims about statistical evidence.
References
Achinstein, P. (2001). The book of evidence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Box, G. E. P., & Tiao, G. C. (1973). Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley.
Chalmers, D. (2011). The nature of epistemic space. In A. Egan, & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, D. R. (2006). Principles of statistical inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
DeRose, K. (1991). Epistemic possibilities. The Philosophical Review, 100, 581–605.CrossRef
Fisher, R. A. (1949). The design of experiments (5th edn). New York: Hafner Publishing Co.
Hampel, F. (1968). Contributions to the theory of robust estimation. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Hampel, F. (1971). A general qualitative definition of robustness. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42, 1887–1896.CrossRef
Hampel, F. (1974). The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 383–393.CrossRef
Hampel, F. R., Ronchetti, E. M., Rousseeuw, P. J., & Stahel, W. A. (1986). Robust statistics: The approach based on influence functions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Huber, P. (1964). Robust estimation of a location parameter. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35, 73–101.CrossRef
Huber, P. (1981). Robust statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.CrossRef
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355.CrossRef
MacFarlane, J. (2011). Epistemic modals are assessmentsensitive. In A. Egan, & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Magnus, J. R. (2007). Local sensitivity in econometrics. In M. Boumans (Ed.), Measurement in economics: A handbook (pp. 295–319). Oxford: Academic.
Magnus, J. R., & Vasnev, A. L. (2007). Local sensitivity and diagnostic tests. Econometrics Journal, 10, 166–192.CrossRef
Mayo, D. G. (1992). Did Pearson reject the Neyman–Pearson philosophy of statistics? Synthese, 90, 233–262.CrossRef
Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mayo, D. G., & Spanos, A. (2004). Methodology in practice: Statistical misspecification testing. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1007–1025.CrossRef
Mayo, D. G., & Spanos, A. (2006). Severe testing as a basic concept in a Neyman–Pearson philosophy of induction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(2), 323–357.CrossRef
Neyman, J. (1950). First course in probability and statistics. New York: Henry Holt.
Neyman, J. (1955). The problem of inductive inference. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, VIII, 13–46.CrossRef
Pearson, E. S. (1962). Some thoughts on statistical inference. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33, 394–403.CrossRef
Spanos, A. (1999). Probability theory and statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sprenger, J. (2009). Science without (parametric) models: The case of bootstrap resampling. Synthese, published online. doi:10.1007/s112290099567z.
Staley, K. (2008). Errorstatistical elimination of alternative hypotheses. Synthese, 163, 397–408.CrossRef
Staley, K., & Cobb, A. (2010). Internalist and externalist aspects of justification in scientific inquiry. Synthese, published online. doi:10.1007/s112290109754y.
Stigler, S. (1973). Simon Newcomb, Percy Daniell, and the history of robust estimation 1885–1920. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 68, 872–879.CrossRef
Tukey, J. (1960). A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 448–85). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
 Title
 Strategies for securing evidence through model criticism
 Journal

European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Volume 2, Issue 1 , pp 2143
 Cover Date
 20120101
 DOI
 10.1007/s131940110022x
 Print ISSN
 18794912
 Online ISSN
 18794920
 Publisher
 Springer Netherlands
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 Evidence
 Statistics
 Robustness
 Misspecification testing
 Errorstatistics
 Justification
 Security
 Statistical models
 Authors

 Kent W. Staley ^{(1)}
 Author Affiliations

 1. Department of Philosopy, Saint Louis University, 3800 Lindell Blvd, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA