Synthese

, Volume 182, Issue 1, pp 89–100 | Cite as

Data meet theory: up close and inferentially personal

Article

Abstract

In a recent paper James Bogen and James Woodward denounce a set of views on confirmation that they collectively brand ‘IRS’. The supporters of these views cast confirmation in terms of Inferential Relations between observational and theoretical Sentences. Against IRS accounts of confirmation, Bogen and Woodward unveil two main objections: (a) inferential relations are not necessary to model confirmation relations since many data are neither in sentential form nor can they be put in such a form and (b) inferential relations are not sufficient to model confirmation relations because the former cannot capture evidentially relevant factors about the detection processes and instruments that generate the data. In this paper I have a two-fold aim: (i) to show that Bogen and Woodward fail to provide compelling grounds for the rejection of IRS models and (ii) to highlight some of the models’ neglected merits.

Keywords

Data Phenomena Confirmation Inferences Bogen Woodward 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bogen J., Woodward J. (1988) Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review 97: 303–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogen J., Woodward J. (1992) Observations, theories and the evolutions of the human spirit. Philosophy of Science 59(4): 590–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bogen J., Woodward J. (2003) Evading the IRS. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities. In: Jones R., Cartwright N. (eds) Idealization XII: Correcting the model. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 233–268Google Scholar
  4. Franklin A. (1994) How to avoid the experimenter’s regress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25(3): 463–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glymour C. (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Hempel C. G. (1943) A purely syntactical definition of confirmation. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 8(4): 122–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hempel C. G. (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Howson C., Urbach P. (1989) Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Open Court, La Salle, ILGoogle Scholar
  9. Votsis, I. (forthcoming). Making contact with observations. In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rédei (Eds.), EPSAO7: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association. Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Woodward J. (1989) Data and phenomena. Synthese 79(3): 393–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches InstitutUniversität DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations