, Volume 80, Issue 3, pp 521–553 | Cite as

Keynes’s Coefficient of Dependence Revisited

  • Peter BrösselEmail author
Original Article


Probabilistic dependence and independence are among the key concepts of Bayesian epistemology. This paper focuses on the study of one specific quantitative notion of probabilistic dependence. More specifically, section 1 introduces Keynes’s coefficient of dependence and shows how it is related to pivotal aspects of scientific reasoning such as confirmation, coherence, the explanatory and unificatory power of theories, and the diversity of evidence. The intimate connection between Keynes’s coefficient of dependence and scientific reasoning raises the question of how Keynes’s coefficient of dependence is related to truth, and how it can be made fruitful for epistemological considerations. This question is answered in section 2 of the paper. Section 3 outlines the consequences the results have for epistemology and the philosophy of science from a Bayesian point of view.


  1. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2003). Bayesian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brössel, P. (2008). Theory assessment and coherence. Abstracta, 4, 57–71.Google Scholar
  3. Brössel, P. (2012). Rethinking Bayesian confirmation theory—Steps towards a new theory of confirmation. Unpublished PhD-thesis (Konstanz).Google Scholar
  4. Brössel, P. (2013a). The problem of measure sensitivity redux. Philosophy of Science, 80(3), 378–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brössel, P. (2013b). Assessing theories: The coherentist approach. Erkenntnis, 79, 593–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brössel, P. (2013c). Correlation and truth. In V. Karakostas & D. Dieks (Eds.), Recent progress in philosophy of science: Perspectives and foundational problems (pp. 41–54). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, D. (1999). Measuring Confirmation. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 437–461.Google Scholar
  8. Carnap, R. (1962). The logical foundations of probability (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Crupi, V. (2013). Confirmation. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  10. Crupi, V., & Tentori, K. (2012). A second look at the logic of explanatory power (with two novel representation theorems). Philosophy of Science, 79, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crupi, V., Tentori, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2007). On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. Philosophy of Science, 74, 229–252.Google Scholar
  12. Douven, I., & Meijs, W. (2007). Measuring coherence. Synthese, 156, 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitelson, B. (1999). The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity. Philosophy of Science, 66, S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitelson, B. (2001). Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. PhD. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Philosophy).Google Scholar
  15. Fitelson, B. (2003). A probabilistic theory of coherence. Analysis, 63, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaifman, H., & Snir, M. (1982). Probabilities over rich languages, testing, and randomness. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 47, 495–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Good, I. J. (1960). Weight of evidence, corroboration, explanatory power, information and the utility of experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 22, 319–331.Google Scholar
  18. Hawthorne, J. (2014). Inductive logic. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition).
  19. Hempel, C. G. (1960). Inductive inconsistencies. Synthese, 12, 439–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horwich, P. (1982). Probability and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huber, F. (2005). What is the point of confirmation? Philosophy of Science, 72, 1146–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, F. (2008). Assessing theories, Bayes style. Synthese, 161, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Joyce, J. (1999). Foundations of causal decision theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keynes, J. (1921). A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Levi, I. (1967). Gambling with truth. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  26. Mackie, J. (1969). The relevance criterion of confirmation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGrew, T. (2003). Confirmation, heuristics, and explanatory reasoning. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 553–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milne, P. (1996). \(log[p(h/eb)/p(h/b)]\) is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science, 63, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortimer, H. (1988). The Logic of Induction. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Myrvold, W. (1996). Bayesianism and diverse evidence: A reply to Andrew Wayne. Philosophy of Science, 63, 661–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Oxford: Clarenden.Google Scholar
  32. Myrvold, W. (2003). A Bayesian account of the virtue of unification. Philosophy of Science, 70, 399–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olsson, E. (2002). What is the problem of coherence and truth? The Journal of Philosophy, 99, 246–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  35. Schervish, M., & Seidenfeld, T. (1990). An approach to consensus and certainty with increasing evidence. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 25, 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shogenji, T. (1999). Is coherence truth conducive? Analysis, 59, 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shogenji, T. (2007). Why does coherence appear truth-conducive? Synthese, 157, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schupbach, J. (2011a). Comparing probabilistic measures of explanatory power. Philosophy of Science, 78, 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schupbach, J. (2011b). New hope for Shogenji’s coherence measure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62, 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schupbach, J. (2005). On a Bayesian analysis of unification. Philosophy of Science, 72, 594–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schupbach, J., & Sprenger, J. (2011). The logic of explanatory power. Philosophy of Science, 78, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wayne, A. (1995). Bayesianism and diverse evidence. Philosophy of Science, 62, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wheeler, G. (2009). Focused correlation and confirmation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Center for Mind, Brain, and Cognitive EvolutionRuhr-University BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations