![]() ![]() & quot John Earman's Bayes or Bust? is a fine analysis of many issues facing modern theoretical statistics and the enterprise of confirmation theory. It brings together technical results with great accuracy and appropriateness and will undoubtedly become a standard work among philosophers of science." - Clark Glymour, Carnegie Mellon University " John Earman's "Bayes or Bust?" is a fine analysis of many issues facing modern theoretical statistics and the enterprise of confirmation theory. Clark Glymour, Carnegie Mellon University "synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title. By focusing on the need for a resolution to this impasse, Earman sharpens the issues on which a resolution turns. Earman argues that Bayesianism provides the best hope for a comprehensive and unified account of scientific inference, yet the presently available versions of Bayesianisin fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirming of scientific theories and hypotheses. In a paper published posthumously in 1763, the Reverend Thomas Bayes made a seminal contribution to the understanding of "analogical or inductive reasoning." Building on his insights, modem Bayesians have developed an account of scientific inference that has attracted numerous champions as well as numerous detractors. Both Bayesians and anti-Bayesians will find a wealth of new insights on topics ranging from Bayes's original paper to contemporary formal learning theory. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. There is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. This title was originally published in 1992.Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. “Why Functionalism Didn't Work,” Hilary Putnam “Procedural Syntax for Theory Elements,” Joseph D. “Theories of Theories: A View from Cognitive Science,” Richard E. “Do We Need a Hierarchical Model of Science?” Diderik Batens “Constructivism, Realism, and Philosophical Method,” Richard Boyd “Language and Interpretation: Philosophical Reflections and Empirical Inquiry,” Noam Chomsky “Philosophy and the Exact Sciences: Logical Positivism as a Case Study,” Michael Friedman “Genetic Inference: A Reconsideration of “David Hume's Empiricism,” Barbara D. “Aristotelian Natures and Modern Experimental Method,” Nancy Cartwright “The Concept of Induction in the Light of the Interrogative Approach to Inquiry,” Jaakko Hintikka “Thoroughly Modern Meno,” Clark Glymour and Kevin Kelly ![]() By turns empirical or analytic, historical or programmatic, confessional or argumentative, the authors' arguments both describe and demonstrate the fact that philosophy of science is in a ferment more intense than at any time since the heyday of logical positivism early in the twentieth century. The papers are rich in new perspectives, and their far-reaching criticisms challenge arguments long prevalent in classic philosophical problems of induction, empiricism, and realism. These provocative essays by leading philosophers of science exemplify and illuminate the contemporary uncertainty and excitement in the field.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |