Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:09:16.960Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypothesis Competition beyond Mutual Exclusivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jonah N. Schupbach  and
David H. Glass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition between scientific hypotheses is not always a matter of mutual exclusivity. Consistent hypotheses can compete to varying degrees either directly or indirectly via a body of evidence. We motivate and defend a particular account of hypothesis competition by showing how it captures these features. Computer simulations of Bayesian inference are used to highlight the limitations of adopting mutual exclusivity as a simplifying assumption to model scientific reasoning, particularly due to the exclusion of hypotheses that may be true. We end with a case study demonstrating the subtleties involved in hypothesis competition in scientific practice.

Type
Evidence and Inference
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 810 - 824
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

Alvarez, Luis W., Alvarez, Walter, Asaro, Frank, and Michel, Helen V. 1980. “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction.” Science 208:1095–1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archibald, J. David, et al. 2010. “Cretaceous Extinctions: Multiple Causes.” Science 328:973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, Michael J. 1990. “Scientific Methodologies in Collision: The History of the Study of the Extinction of the Dinosaurs.” Evolutionary Biology 24:371–400.Google Scholar
Brusatte, Stephen L., et al. 2015. “The Extinction of the Dinosaurs.” Biological Reviews 90:628–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleland, Carol E. 2002. “Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science.” Philosophy of Science 69:474–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, Carol E. 2011. “Prediction and Explanation in Historical Natural Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62:551–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtillot, Vincent, and Fluteau, Frédéric. 2010. “Cretaceous Extinctions: The Volcanic Hypothesis.” Science 328:973–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glass, David H. 2012. “Can Evidence for Design Be Explained Away?” In Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Chandler, J. and Harrison, V., 79–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, David H., and Schupbach, Jonah N. 2017. “When Do Hypotheses Compete?” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, Alan R., et al. 1991. “Chicxulub Crater: A Possible Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary Impact Crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.” Geology 19:867–71.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Gerta, et al. 2010. “Cretaceous Extinctions: Evidence Overlooked.” Science 328:974–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renne, Paul R., et al. 2015. “State Shift in Deccan Volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary, Possibly Induced by Impact.” Science 350:76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, Peter, et al. 2010. “The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary.” Science 327:1214–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar