Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 13–40 | Cite as

Wofür sprechen die Daten?

  • Thomas Bartelborth


What Do the Data Tell Us? Justification of scientific theories is a three-place relation between data, theories, and background knowledge. Though this should be a commonplace, many methodologies in science neglect it. The article will elucidate the significance and function of our background knowledge in epistemic justification and their consequences for different scientific methodologies. It is argued that there is no simple and at the same time acceptable statistical algorithm that justifies a given theory merely on the basis of certain data. And even if we think to know the probability of a theory, that does not decide whether we should accept it or not.

Bayesiamism coherence epistemology holism interence to the bestexplanation statistical testing theory choice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bartelborth, T.: 1993, 'Hierarchy Versus Holism. A Structuralist View on General Relativity', Erkenntnis 39, 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartelborth, T.: 1996, 'Begründungsstrategien. Ein Weg durch die analytische Erkenntnistheorie, Akademie Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Bartelborth, T.: 2001, 'Abduktion und Verstehen', in Thomas Rentsch (Hg.), Sprache, Erkenntnis, Verstehen. Grundfragen der theoretischen Philosophie der Gegenwart, Dresden, 77–102.Google Scholar
  4. Bartelborth, T.: 2002, 'Explanatory Unification', Synthese 130, 91–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck-Bornholdt, H.-P. and Dubben, H.-H.: 1998, Der Hund, der Eier legt. Erkennen von Fehlinformationen durch Querdenken, rororo.Google Scholar
  6. Berk, R. A. and Freedman, D. A.:2001, 'Statistical Assumptions as Empirical Commitments', in T.G. Blomberg and S. Cohen (eds), Law, Punishment, and Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger, 2nd ed. de Gruyter, NewYork, to appear.Google Scholar
  7. BonJour, L.: 1985, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, A. F.: 2001, Wege der Wissenschaft, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Chow, S. L.: 1998, 'Précis of Statistical Significance: Rationale, Validity, and Utility', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 169–239.Google Scholar
  10. Earman, J.: 1992, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge/Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, A. W. F.: 1992 (1. Auflage 1972), Likelihood, John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fitelson, B.: 1999, 'The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity', Philosophy of Science 66, 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forster, M. R. and Sober, E.: 2001, 'Why Likelihood', forthcoming in Mark Taper and Subhash Lele (eds), Likelihood and Evidence, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Freedman, D. A.: 1999, 'From Association to Causation: Some Remarks on the History of Statistics', Statistical Science 14, 243–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freedman, D. A. and Humphreys, P.: 1999, 'Are there algorithms that discover causal structure?', Synthese 121, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freedman, D. A., Pisani, R. and Purves, R.: 19983, Statistics, W. W.Norton and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Gähde, U. and Stegmüller,W.: 1988, 'An Argument in Favor of the Duhem-Quine-Thesis: From the Structuralist Point of View', in Lewis Edwin Hahn and Paul Arthur Schilpp (eds), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine,-3. pr.-La Salle, Ill.: Open Court: 1988, S. 116–136.Google Scholar
  18. Gillies, D.: 1986, 'In Defense of the Popper-Miller Argument', Philosophy of Science 53, 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Good, I. J.: 1967, 'The White Shoe is a Red Herring', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17, 322.Google Scholar
  20. Goodman, N.: 1965, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Bobbs Merrill, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  21. Gower, B.: 1997, Scientific Method. An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Howson, C. and Urbach, P.: 1993, Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court.Google Scholar
  23. Humphreys, P. and Freedman, D. A.: 1996, 'The Grand Leap', British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 47, 113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pearl, J.: 2000, Causality. Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  25. Popper, K. R. and Miller, D. W.: 1987, 'Why Probabilistic Support is not Inductive', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 321, 569–591.Google Scholar
  26. Quine, W. v. O.: 1979, 'Zwei Dogmen des Empirismus', in W. V. O. Quine, Von einem logischen Standpunkt, Ullstein, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  27. Royall, R.: 1997, Statistical Evidence-A Likelihood Paradigm, Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Salmon, W. C.: 1984, Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  29. Redhead, M.: 1985, 'On the Impossibility of Inductive Probability', The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 185–191.Google Scholar
  30. Schoch, D.: 2000, 'A Fuzzy Measure for Explanatory Coherence', Synthese 122, 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schurz, G.: 2001, 'Normische Gesetzeshypothesen und die wissenschaftsphilosophische Bedeutung des nichtmonotonen Schließen', Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32, 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sober, E.: 1991, Reconstructing the Past. Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference, MIT Press, Cambridge/Mass.Google Scholar
  33. Sober, E.: 2001, 'Venetian Sea Levels, British Bread Prices, and the Principle of the Common Cause', British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sober, E.: 2002, The Design Argument, to appear in the Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion.Google Scholar
  35. Thagard, Paul: 2000, Coherence in Thought and Action, MIT Press: Cambridge/Mass.Google Scholar
  36. Woodward, J.: 1997, 'Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention', Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings), 26–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Bartelborth
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Logik und WissenschaftstheorieUniversität LeipzigLeipzig

Personalised recommendations