Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that E8 is evidence (perhaps very weak evidence) for believing Not-Q8*
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Explanatory inference requires that the hypothesis be a *better* explanation than rivals, not merely a possible one (Lipton, 'Inference to the Best Explanation').
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Not-Q8* may be merely one of indefinitely many potential explanations of E8, none of which thereby gains evidential support over the others.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
On a Bayesian account, E8 confirms Not-Q8* only if P(E8|Not-Q8*) > P(E8), which requires prior probability assessments, not mere explanatory relation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The bare logical fact that Not-Q8* entails or explains E8 is insufficient for confirmation without specifying the relevant likelihood ratios (Sober, 'Likelihoodism').
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Not-Q8* provides a potential explanation of E8
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A proposition that explains an evidential statement thereby receives evidential support from that statement
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42