ABSTRACT. Normally, whether evidence of observation e confirms hypothesis h relative to background evidence k is a matter of the logical relations between e, h, and k, and independent of whether h was formulated before or after the discovery of e. This is supported by intuitions about various examples from history of science, and fits in with a Bayesian account of confirmation. There are however abnormal cases where the background evidence has a special character, when it does become relevant when h was formulated and k records that.


Oxford University
Fellow of the British Academy
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Home | About Us | Events | Our Team | Contributors | Peer Reviewers | Editing Services | Books | Contact | Online Access

© 2009 Addleton Academic Publishers. All Rights Reserved.

Joomla templates by Joomlashine