Strategies for securing evidence through model criticism Original Paper in Philosophy of Science

First Online: 08 February 2011 Received: 18 January 2010 Accepted: 01 December 2010 DOI :
10.1007/s13194-011-0022-x

Cite this article as: Staley, K.W. Euro Jnl Phil Sci (2012) 2: 21. doi:10.1007/s13194-011-0022-x Abstract Some accounts of evidence regard it as an objective relationship holding between data and hypotheses, perhaps mediated by a testing procedure. Mayo’s error-statistical 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.

Keywords Evidence Statistics Robustness Mis-specification testing Error-statistics Justification Security Statistical models

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.: Addison-Wesley.

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 assessment-sensitive. 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/s11229-009-9567-z .

Staley, K. (2008). Error-statistical 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/s11229-010-9754-y .

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.

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations 1. Department of Philosopy Saint Louis University St. Louis USA