Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:45:04.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bayesianism and Diverse Evidence: A Reply to Andrew Wayne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Wayne C. Myrvold
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Andrew Wayne (1995) discusses some recent attempts to account, within a Bayesian framework, for the “common methodological adage” that “diverse evidence better confirms a hypothesis than does the same amount of similar evidence” (112). One of the approaches considered by Wayne is that suggested by Howson and Urbach (1989/1993) and dubbed the “correlation approach” by Wayne. This approach is, indeed, incomplete, in that it neglects the role of the hypothesis under consideration in determining what diversity in a body of evidence is relevant diversity. In this paper, it is shown how this gap can be filled, resulting in a more satisfactory account of the evidential role of diversity of evidence. In addition, it is argued that Wayne's criticism of the correlation approach does not indicate a serious flaw in the approach.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 661 - 665
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

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.)

Footnotes

†

The author would like to thank Georgios Asteris and an anonymous referee for their helpful comments and suggestions.

‡

Send reprint requests to the author, 6 Brook Street, Sherborn, MA 01770.

References

Carnap, R. (1950), Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. (1992), Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Urbach, P. (1989), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. La Salle, IL: Open Court. Second edition, 1993.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1992), Probability and the Art of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1975), “Confirmation and Relevance”, in Maxwell, G. and Anderson, R. M. Jr. (ed.), Induction, Probability, and Confirmation. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume VI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Wayne, A. (1995), “Bayesianism and Diverse Evidence.” Philosophy of Science 62: 111–121.10.1086/289842CrossRefGoogle Scholar