Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:35:09.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FURTHER RESULTS ON THE INTRANSITIVITY OF EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2011

IGOR DOUVEN
IGOR DOUVEN*
Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, University of Leuven
*
*FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN. E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is known that evidential support, on the Bayesian definition of this notion, is intransitive. According to some, however, the Bayesian definition is too weak to be materially adequate. This paper investigates whether evidential support is transitive on some plausible probabilistic strengthening of that definition. It is shown that the answer is negative. In fact, it will appear that even under conditions under which the Bayesian notion of evidential support is transitive, the most plausible candidate strengthenings are not.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 487 - 497
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2011

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability (2nd edition). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1999). Measuring confirmation. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, V., Tentori, K., & Gonzalez, M. (2007). On Bayesian measures of evidential support: Theoretical and empirical issues. Philosophy of Science, 74, 229–252.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1982). Rational Decision and Causality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eells, E., & Fitelson, B. (2000). Measuring confirmation and evidence. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 663–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eells, E., & Fitelson, B. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries in evidential support. Philosophical Studies, 107, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2001). Studies in Bayesian confirmation theory. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
Fitelson, B. (2008). A decision procedure for probability calculus with applications. Review of Symbolic Logic, 1, 111–125.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. (1985). On inductive support and some recent tricks. Erkenntnis, 22, 5–21.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1984). The best explicatum of weight of evidence. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 19, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974). The Structure of Scientific Inference. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1992). Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. (1999). The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, J. (2004). Bayesianism In Mele, A. R., and Rawling, P., editors. The Oxford Handbook of Rationality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–155.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J., & Oppenheim, P. (1952). Degrees of factual support. Philosophy of Science, 19, 307–324.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kuipers, T. (2000). From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Milne, P. (1996). log[p(h/eb)/p(h/b)] is the one true measure of confirmation. Philosophy of Science, 63, 21–26.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J. (2001). Two kinds of reasoning. Psychological Science, 12, 129–134.Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. (1981). Foundations and Applications of Inductive Probability. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. (1994). Bayesian confirmation: paradise regained. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45, 467–476.Google Scholar
Shogenji, T. (2003). A condition for transitivity in probabilistic support. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 613–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tentori, K., Crupi, V., Bonini, N., & Osherson, D. (2007). Comparison of confirmation measures. Cognition, 103, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed