Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:06:11.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bootstrapping in Un-Natural Sciences: Archaeological Theory Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Alison Wylie
Alison Wylie*
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Glymour’s boostrapping account of confirmation is meant to show how it is that evidence can bear on a theory in a discriminating, noncircular way even when that theory is used to establish the inferential link between evidence and a test hypothesis. Evidence confirms a theory on his account if, “using the theory, we can deduce from the evidence an instance of the hypothesis i.e., an hypothesis comprising or instantiating the test theory, and the deduction is such that it does not guarantee that we would have gotten an instance of the hypothesis regardless of what the evidence might have been.” (1980, p. 127). Glymour goes on to argue that this strategy of inference should appear most explicitly in the developing and “un-natural” (social) sciences where novel theories are being formulated or applied to new domains (1980, p. 172).

Type
Part V. Social Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 314 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Footnotes

1

The research for this paper was partially supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the University of Calgary. Earlier versions of the paper were read to the Department of Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario (January 1985) and at the Canadian Philosophical Association Meetings (May 1985); I thank those present on these occasions for extremely valuable discussion. In particular, I thank Kathleen Okruhlik for her thoughtful and detailed commentary at the CPA.

References

Binford, L. R. (1972). An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Earman, Joh (ed.). (1983). Testing Scientific Theories. (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume X.) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, Clark. (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, Clark. (1983). “On Testing and Evidence.” In Earman (1983). Pages 3–26.Google Scholar
Hill, J. N. (1966). “A Prehistoric Community in Eastern Arizona.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 22: 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. N.. (1968). “Broken K. Pueblo: Patterns of Form and Function.” In New Perspectives in Archaeology. Edited by L.R. Binford and S.R. Binford. Chicago: Aldine. Pages 103-142.Google Scholar
Hill, J. N.. (1970). Broken K Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest. (Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona #18.) Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul. (1983). “Explanations of Irrelevance.” In Earman (1983). Pages 55–66.Google Scholar
Longacre, W. A. (1966). “Changing Patterns of Social Integration: A Prehistoric Example from the American Southwest.” American Anthropologist 68: 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, W.A. (ed.). (1970). Reconstructing Prehistoric Pueblo Social Organization. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Meehl, Paul E. (1983). “Consistency Tests in Estimating the Completeness of the Fossil Record.” In Earman (1983). Pages 413–473.Google Scholar
Plog, S. (1978). “Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis.” In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 1. Edited by Michael B. Schiffer. New York: Academic Press. Pages 143–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S. (1980). Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics: Design Analysis in the American Southwest. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. (1983). “Theory Comparison and Relevant Evidence.” In Earman (1983). Pages 27–42.Google Scholar