, Volume 156, Issue 3, pp 473–489 | Cite as

Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation

  • Branden Fitelson
Original Paper


Likelihoodists and Bayesians seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the proper probabilistic explication of relational (or contrastive) conceptions of evidential support (or confirmation). In this paper, I will survey some recent arguments and results in this area, with an eye toward pinpointing the nexus of the dispute. This will lead, first, to an important shift in the way the debate has been couched, and, second, to an alternative explication of relational support, which is in some sense a “middle way” between Likelihoodism and Bayesianism. In the process, I will propose some new work for an old probability puzzle: the “Monty Hall” problem.


Confirmation Support Favoring Likelihood Bayesian Monty Hall 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bovens L., Hartmann S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley D., Fitelson B. (2003). Monty Hall, Doomsday and confirmation. Analysis 63(1): 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap R. (1962). Logical foundations of probability, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, A. W. F. (1992). Likelihood. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, expanded edition. Revised reprint of the 1972 original.Google Scholar
  5. Eells E., Fitelson B. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. Philosophical Studies 107(2): 129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitelson B. (1999). The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66, S362–S378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitelson B. (2001a). A Bayesian account of independent evidence with applications. Philosophy of Science 68(3): supplement), S123–S140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitelson, B. (2001b). Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison (Philosophy). The thesis can be downloaded from Scholar
  9. Fitelson B. (2002). Putting the irrelevance back into the problem of irrelevant conjunction. Philosophy of Science 69(4): 611–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitelson B. (2005). Inductive logic. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds). The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. Routledge Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Forster M., Sober E. (2004). Why Likelihood?. In: Taper M., Lele S. (eds). The nature of scientific evidence. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, N., & Halpern, J. Y. (1995). Plausibility measures: A user’s guide. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (Montreal, PQ, 1995) (pp. 175–184). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. Good, I. (1985). Weight of evidence: A brief survey. In Bayesian Statistics, 2 (Valencia, 1983) pp. 249–269. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Howson C., Urbach P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Open Court, La SalleGoogle Scholar
  15. Joyce, J. (2004a). Bayes’s Theorem. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition). URL = Scholar
  16. Joyce, J. (2004b). On the plurality of probabilist measures of evidential relevance. Unpublished manuscript (presented at PSA 2004 symposium on inductive logic).Google Scholar
  17. Milne P. (1996). log[P(h/eb)/P(h/b)] is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63, 21–26Google Scholar
  18. Popper K. (1954). Degree of confirmation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5, 143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Royall R. (1997). Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sober, E. (1994). Contrastive empiricism. In From a biological point of view: Essays in evolutionary philosophy (pp. 114–135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sober E. (2005). Is drift a serious alternative to natural selection as an explanation of complex adaptive traits?. In: O’Hear A. (eds). Philosophy, biology and life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Spohn, W. (1990). A general nonprobabilistic theory of inductive reasoning. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 4, Vol. 9 of Mach. Intelligence Pattern Recogn. (pp. 149–158). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Steel D. (2003). A Bayesian way to make stopping rules matter. Synthese 58, 213–227Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkelyUSA

Personalised recommendations