Comparative Bayesian Confirmation and the Quine-Duhem Problem: A Rejoinder to Strevens |
| |
| Authors: | Fitelson Branden; Waterman Andrew |
| |
| Institution: | Philosophy Department, University of California-Berkeley |
| |
| Abstract: | By and large, we think (Strevens's 2005]) is a useful replyto our original critique (Fitelson and Waterman 2005]) of hisarticle on the Quine–Duhem (QD) problem (Strevens 2001]).But, we remain unsatisfied with several aspects of his reply(and his original article). Ultimately, we do not think he properlyaddresses our most important worries. In this brief rejoinder,we explain our remaining worries, and we issue a revised challengefor Strevens's approach to QD. - 1 Strevens's ‘clarifications’
- 2 Strevens's new-and-improved ‘negligibility arguments’
|
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 Oxford 等数据库收录！ |
|
