Advertisement

A Philosopher’s View on Bayesian Evaluation of Informative Hypotheses

  • Jan-Willem RomeijnEmail author
  • Rens van de Schoot
Part of the Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences book series (SSBS)

Abstract

This chapter provides an answer to the question: What it is, philosophically speaking, to choose a model in a statistical procedure, and what does this amounts to in the context of a Bayesian inference? Special attention is given to Bayesian model selection, specifically the choice between inequality constrained and unconstrained models based on their Bayes factors and posterior model probabilities.

Keywords

Bayesian Inference Inductive Inference Bayesian Statistic Probability Assignment Logical Possibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Barnet, V.: Comparative Statistical Inference. New York, Wiley (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bird, A.: Philosophy of Science. Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Carnap, R.: Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie. Berlin, Weltkreis-Verlag (1928)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Carnap, R.: The Foundations of Probability. Chicago, University of Chicago Press (1950)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Carnap, R.: The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago, University of Chicago Press (1952)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Cover, J.A., Curd, M.: Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York , Norton and Co. (1998)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Dawid, A.P.: The well–calibrated Bayesian. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 77, 605–613 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    De Finetti, B.: Probability, Induction and Statistics. New York, Wiley (1972)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Festa, R.: Optimum Inductive Methods. Dordrecht, Kluwer (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gaifman, H., Snir, M.: Probabilities over rich languages. Journal of Symbolic Logic 47, 495–548 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Goodman, N.: Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press (1955)Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hintikka, J.: A Two–dimensional Continuum of Inductive Methods. In: Hintikka, J., Suppes, P. (eds) Aspects of Inductive Logic. Amsterdam, North Holland (1966)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Howson, C.: A logic of induction. Philosophy of Science, 64, 268–90 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Howson, C.: Hume’s Problem. Oxford, Clarendon Press (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hume, D.: An Enquiry concerning human understanding (1748). Tom Beauchamp (ed), Oxford, Oxford University Press (1999)Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Huntjens, R.J.C., Peters, M.L., Woertman, L., Bovenschen, L.M., Martin, R.C., Postma, A.: Inter-identity amnesia in dissociative identity disorder: A simulated memory impairment? Psychological Medicine, 36, 857–863 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Popper, K.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, Hutchinson (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Romeijn, J.W.: Hypotheses and inductive predictions. Synthese, 141, 333–364 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Romeijn, J.W.: Bayesian inductive logic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen (2005)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhilosophyGroningen UniversityOude Boteringestraat 52the Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Methodology and StatisticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations