Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:53:40.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracking Confirmation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Igor Douven
Igor Douven*
Affiliation:
To contact the author, please write to: IHPST,13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Confirmation is a graded notion: evidence can confirm a hypothesis to a greater or lesser degree. There has been debate about how to measure degree of confirmation. Starting from the observation that we would like evidence to be a discriminating indicator of truth, we conduct computer simulations to determine how well the various known measures of confirmation predict the extent to which a given piece of evidence fulfills that role, given a hypothesis of interest. The outcomes show that some measures are markedly better indicators of truth than others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 398 - 414
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

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

†

I thank the anonymous reviewers for their incisive comments, which greatly helped to improve this article. The Julia code for the simulations reported in this article can be downloaded from https://github.com/IgorDouven/Tracking.

References

Carnap, Rudolf. 1962. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Patricia. 1997. “From Covariation to Causation: A Causal Power Theory.” Psychological Review 104:367–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, David. 1999. “Measuring Confirmation.” Journal of Philosophy 96:437–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo. 2016. “Confirmation.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. .Google Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, and Tentori, Katya. 2013. “Confirmation as Partial Entailment: A Representation Theorem.” Journal of Applied Logic 11:364–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, Tentori, Katya, and Gonzalez, Michel. 2007. “On Bayesian Measures of Evidential Support: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Philosophy of Science 74:229–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, Ellery, and Fitelson, Branden. 2002. “Symmetries and Asymmetries in Evidential Support.” Philosophical Studies 107:129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fawcett, Tom. 2006. “An Introduction to ROC Analysis.” Pattern Recognition Letters 27:861–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, Henry A. 1960. “Confirming Power of Observations Metricized for Decisions among Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 27:293–307, 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 1999. “The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity.” Philosophy of Science 66 (Proceedings): S362–S378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 2001. “Studies in Bayesian Confirmation Theory.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 2006. “Logical Foundations of Evidential Support.” Philosophy of Science 73:500–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden, and Hitchcock, Christopher. 2011. “Probabilistic Measures of Causal Strength.” In Causality in the Sciences, ed. Illari, P. McKay and Russo, F., 600–627. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, David H. 2013. “Confirmation Measures of Association Rule Interestingness.” Knowledge-Based Systems 44:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, David H., and McCartney, Mark. 2015. “A New Argument for the Likelihood Ratio Measure of Confirmation.” Acta Analytica 30:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, Irving J. 1950. Probability and the Weighing of Evidence. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Good, Irving J.. 1983. Good Thinking: The Foundations of Probability and Its Applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Good, Irving J.. 1985. “Weight of Evidence: A Brief Survey.” In Bayesian Statistics, Vol. 2, ed. Bernardo, J. M., DeGroot, M. H., Lindley, D. V., and Smith, A. F. M., 249–70. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike, Oaksford, Mike, and Bayindir, Hatice. 2005. “How Convinced Should We Be by Negative Evidence?” In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Bara, B., Barsalou, L., and Bucciarelli, M., 887–92. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kemeny, John, and Oppenheim, Paul. 1952. “Degrees of Factual Support.” Philosophy of Science 19:307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1986. “Postscripts to ‘Causation.’” In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, 173–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mortimer, Halina. 1988. The Logic of Induction. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rips, Lance J. 2001. “Two Kinds of Reasoning.” Psychological Science 12:129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouder, Jeffrey N., Speckman, Paul L., Sun, Dongchu, Morey, Richard D., and Iverson, Geoffrey. 2009. “Bayesian t Tests for Accepting and Rejecting the Null Hypothesis.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 16:225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roush, Sherrilyn. 2005. Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, David R. 1995. “Is Human Learning Rational?” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48:257–79.Google Scholar
Tentori, Katya, Chater, Nick, and Crupi, Vincenzo. 2016. “Judging the Probability of Hypotheses versus the Impact of Evidence: Which Form of Inductive Inference Is More Accurate and Time-Consistent?” Cognitive Science 40:758–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tentori, Katya, Crupi, Vincenzo, Bonini, Nicolao, and Osherson, Daniel. 2007. “Comparison of Confirmation Measures.” Cognition 103:107–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tentori, Katya, Crupi, Vincenzo, and Russo, Selena. 2013. “On the Determinants of the Conjunction Fallacy: Confirmation versus Probability.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142:235–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Zalabardo, José. 2009. “An Argument for the Likelihood-Ratio Measure of Confirmation.” Analysis 69:630–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar