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
    The Bayesian account of evidential support extends the hy... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Bayesian account of evidential support extends the hypothetical-deductive approach to cover cases where a hypothesis does not deductively entail or preclude an evidential outcome, but instead assigns a probability to that outcome

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?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.The hypothetical-deductive approach is limited to cases where h_i·b·c ⊨ e or h_i·b·c ⊨ ~e holds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Many scientific hypotheses neither deductively entail nor preclude evidential outcomes, but instead imply that outcomes are more or less likely to some specific degree r
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Bayesian approach handles cases where P[e | h_i·b·c] = r for some value r between 0 and 1, generalizing deductive entailment as a special case
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The assignment of prior probabilities P[h_i | b] lacks an objective foundation, making Bayesian 'extension' of HD-confirmation an artifact of subjective credences rather than evidential logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Popper and Miller (1983) demonstrated that probabilistic support cannot decompose into genuinely independent inductive increments, undermining the claim that Bayesian updating constitutes a principled generalization of deductive confirmation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For a hypothesis to assign a determinate probability r to an outcome, it must already presuppose a well-defined probability space, yet specifying that space typically requires background commitments that are themselves empirically contentious.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The HD approach derives its normative force from the necessity of deductive consequence, and replacing entailment with stipulated likelihoods dissolves rather than extends that force, yielding a different epistemic framework, not a generalization of it.
      ?

      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

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    Assigns a probability(as in 'assigns a probability to that outcome')
    Gives something a likelihood or chance of happening—like saying there's a 70% chance it will rain tomorrow.
    Bayesian
    # Bayesian Bayesian refers to a way of thinking about probability and uncertainty that starts with what you already believe, then updates that belief as you get new evidence. Rather than treating probability as just counting how often something happens, it treats it as a measure of how confident you are about something. This approach is named after Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century mathematician, and it's widely used today in everything from medical testing to spam filters because it mirrors how humans naturally learn and change their minds.
    Deductively entail(as in 'does not deductively entail')
    When something logically forces another thing to be true—if the first statement is true, the second must be true with no exceptions.
    Evidential support(as what the functions measure)
    The strength and quality of reasons or evidence that suggests something is true or false.
    Preclude(as used in logic and argumentation)
    To prevent something from happening or to rule something out.
    hypothetical-deductive approach(Philosophy of science, evidential support)
    A method of theory evaluation in which a hypothesis h_i, combined with background knowledge b and condition statement c, is used to deductively calculate a predicted evidential outcome e; the occurrence of e counts as support for h_i, while the occurrence of ~e falsifies h_i

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    For a hypothesis to assign a determinate probability r to an outcome, it must al...Many scientific hypotheses neither deductively entail nor preclude evidential ou...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-inductive
    View source passageHide passage
    In cases where a hypothesis is deductively related to an outcome \(e\) of an observational or experimental condition \(c\) (via background and auxiliaries \(b\)), we will have either \(h_i\cdot b\cdot c \vDash e\) or \(h_i\cdot b\cdot c \vDash{\nsim}e\). For example, \(h_i\) might be the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation. A test of the theory might involve a condition statement \(c\) that describes the results of some earlier measurements of Jupiter’s position, and that describes the means by whic
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Popper and Miller (1983) demonstrated that probabilistic support cannot decompos...
    The Bayesian approach handles cases where P[e | h_i·b·c] = r for some value r be...
    +3 moreShow less
    The HD approach derives its normative force from the necessity of deductive cons...The assignment of prior probabilities P[h_i | b] lacks an objective foundation, ...The hypothetical-deductive approach is limited to cases where h_i·b·c ⊨ e or h_i...

    Similar

    The hypothetical-deductive method treats successful prediction of outc...89%The evidential support or refutation of a hypothesis is relative to wh...84%If a hypothesis h_i, together with background knowledge b and conditio...82%Any account of evidential support that requires greater informativenes...82%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit