Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:18:17.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Good Explanation of an Event is not Necessarily Corroborated by the Event

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

I. J. Good
I. J. Good*
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is shown by means of a simple example that a good explanation of an event is not necessarily corroborated by the occurrence of that event. It is also shown that this contention follows symbolically if an explanation having higher “explicativity” than another is regarded as better.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 251 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Good, I. J. (1968), “Corroboration, Explanation, Evolving Probability, Simplicity and a Sharpened Razor”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1977), “Explicativity: a Mathematical Theory of Explanation with Statistical Applications”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 354: 303–330. Reprinted in A. Zellner (ed.) Bayesian Analysis in Econometrics and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Jeffreys. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander (1980), “Ruse's Treatment of the Evidence for Evolution: a Reconsideration”, in PSA 80, vol. 1. Edited by Asquith, P. D. and Giere, R. N. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association: 83–93.Google Scholar