Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:18:20.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need? A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

John Earman
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh
Clark Glymour
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie-Mellon University and Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Christensen, D. (1983), “Glymour on Evidence and Relevance”, Philosophy of Science 50: 471481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (ed.) (1983), Testing Scientific Theories: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. X. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Edidin, A. (1983), “Bootstrapping Without Bootstraps”, in Earman (1983), pp. 4354.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1983), “Revisions of Bootstrap Testing”, Philosophy of Science 50: 626629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1983), “Theory Comparison and Relevant Evidence”, in Earman (1983), pp. 2742.Google Scholar
Zytkow, J. M. (1986), “What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need?”, Philosophy of Science 53: 101109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar