Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 1, pp 129–138

Contrastive confirmation: some competing accounts

Article

Abstract

I outline four competing probabilistic accounts of contrastive evidential support and consider various considerations that might help arbitrate between these. The upshot of the discussion is that the so-called ‘Law of Likelihood’ is to be preferred to any of the alternatives considered.

Keywords

Law of Likelihood Contrastive confirmation Bayesianism Probability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chandler J. (2007) Solving the tacking problem with contrast classes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58(3): 489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fitelson B. (1999) The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66: 362–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fitelson, B. (2001). Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  4. Fitelson, B. (2003). Review of Richard Swinburne (Ed.) Bayes’s theorem. Notre Dame philosophical reviews.Google Scholar
  5. Fitelson B. (2007) Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation. Synthese 156(3): 473–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fitelson B. (2008) A decision procedure for probability calculus with applications. The Review of Symbolic Logic 1: 111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forster M. R., Sober E. (2004) Why likelihood. In: Taper M., Lele S. (eds) The nature of scientific evidence. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL, pp 153–165Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel A. (1981) Forms of explanation: Rethinking the questions in social theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  9. Hacking I. (1964) On the foundations of statistics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15(57): 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hacking I. (1965) Logic of statistical inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hitchcock C. R. (1996) The role of contrast in causal and explanatory claims. Synthese 107: 395–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hitchcock C. R. (1999) Contrastive explanation and the demons of determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50: 585–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leeds, D. (ms). Other minds, support and likelihoods.Google Scholar
  14. Lipton P. (1990) Contrastive explanation. In: Knowles D. (Ed.) Explanation and its limits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 247–266Google Scholar
  15. McLennen E. F. (1990) Rationality and dynamic choice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Royall R. (1997) Statistical evidence: A likelihood paradigm. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Ruben D. (1987) Explaining contrastive facts. Analysis 47: 35–37Google Scholar
  18. Sober E. (2005) Is drift a serious alternative to natural selection as an explanation of complex adaptive traits? In: O’Hear A. (Ed.) Philosophy, biology and life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Temple D. (1988) Discussion: The contrast theory of why-questions. Philosophy of Science 55: 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Logic and Analytic Philosophy, HIW, KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations