RECORD DETAIL


Back To Previous

UPA Perpustakaan Universitas Jember

Is Explanatoriness a Guide to Confirmation? A Reply to Climenhaga

No image available for this title
We (2013, 2014) argued that explanatoriness is evidentially irrelevant in the
following sense: Let H be a hypothesis, O an observation, and E the proposition that
H would explain O if H and O were true. Then our claim is that Pr(H | O & E) = Pr(H | O).
We defended this screening-off thesis (SOT) by discussing an example concerning
smoking and cancer. Climenhaga (Philos Sci, forthcoming) argues that SOT is mistaken
because it delivers the wrong verdict about a slightly different smoking-and-cancer case.
He also considers a variant of SOT, called ‘‘SOT*’’, and contends that it too gives the
wrong result. We here reply to Climenhaga’s arguments and suggest that SOT provides a
criticism of the widely held theory of inference called ‘‘inference to the best explanation’’.

Availability
EB00000003584KAvailable
Detail Information

Series Title

-

Call Number

-

Publisher

: ,

Collation

-

Language

ISBN/ISSN

-

Classification

NONE

Detail Information

Content Type

E-Jurnal

Media Type

-

Carrier Type

-

Edition

-

Specific Detail Info

-

Statement of Responsibility

No other version available