Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A hypothesis need not be deductively related to evidence ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A hypothesis need not be deductively related to evidence in order to bear on it probabilistically

    Causation
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A hypothesis may itself be an explicitly probabilistic or statistical hypothesis
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An auxiliary statistical hypothesis in the background b may connect a hypothesis to the evidence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The connection between a hypothesis and evidence may be loose or imprecise yet still objective enough for evidential evaluation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Probabilistic relevance requires a well-defined probability space, which itself presupposes determinate logical or causal relations between propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without deductive or lawlike connections grounding the probability assignments, the numerical values become arbitrary and lose objective epistemic significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This objection draws on Keynes's logical theory of probability, where probability is a logical relation requiring objective structural constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Glymour's bootstrap confirmation theory shows that evidential support requires deductive derivability of test implications from hypotheses plus background conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Purely probabilistic relevance without deductive anchoring permits confirmation paradoxes where irrelevant hypotheses gain spurious support from unrelated evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Old Evidence Problem identified by Garber and Glymour shows Bayesian probabilistic relevance fails when evidence is already known, exposing its deductive dependency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Philosophy of Language1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A hypothesis may itself be an explicitly probabilistic or statistical hypothesisAn auxiliary statistical hypothesis in the background b may connect a hypothesis...Glymour's bootstrap confirmation theory shows that evidential support requires d...Probabilistic relevance requires a well-defined probability space, which itself ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Purely probabilistic relevance without deductive anchoring permits confirmation ...The Old Evidence Problem identified by Garber and Glymour shows Bayesian probabi...The connection between a hypothesis and evidence may be loose or imprecise yet s...

    Similar

    A hypothesis may itself be an explicitly probabilistic or statistical ...85%Merely having a probability relation between noninferential evidence a...81%When a hypothesis together with auxiliaries and experimental condition...80%The probability of data according to a hypothesis cannot be used strai...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-inductive
    View source passageHide passage
    In probabilistic inductive logic the likelihoods carry the empirical import of hypotheses. A likelihood is a support function probability of form \(P[e \pmid h_i\cdot b\cdot c]\). It expresses how likely it is that outcome \(e\) will occur according to hypothesis \(h_i\) together with the background and auxiliaries \(b\) and the experimental (or observational) conditions \(c\).[5] If a hypothesis together with auxiliaries and experimental/observation conditions deductively entails an evidence c
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    This objection draws on Keynes's logical theory of probability, where probabilit...
    Without deductive or lawlike connections grounding the probability assignments, ...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit