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
    Analogue confirmation relies on new empirical evidence ob... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Analogue confirmation is not vulnerable to the Dutch Book logical difficulties that affect ampliative rules

    Analogue confirmation relies on new empirical evidence obtained from the analogue system

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Analogue confirmation is not vulnerable to the Dutch Book logical difficulties t...Inference based on new evidence is not an ampliative rule in the problematic sen...Van Fraassen's Dutch Book objection targets probability revision without new evi...

    Similar

    Already known empirical data can confirm the predictions of a theory76%Bayesian confirmation requires that evidence proposition E raises the ...75%The same reasoning that applies to physics applies to confirmation the...74%Scientific theories are empirically confirmed73%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: reasoning-analogy
    View source passageHide passage
    The criticism, made vivid by the tale of Bayesian Peter, is that these ‘ampliative’ rules are vulnerable to a Dutch Book. Adopting any such rule would lead us to acknowledge as fair a system of bets that foreseeably leads to certain loss. Any rule of this type for analogical reasoning appears to be vulnerable to van Fraassen’s objection. There appear to be at least three routes to avoiding these difficulties and finding a role for analogical arguments within Bayesian epistemology. First, ther

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective