What's wrong with our theories of evidence?

Citation data:

Theoria (Spain), ISSN: 2171-679X, Vol: 29, Issue: 2, Page: 283-306

Publication Year:
2014
Usage 705
Downloads 241
Abstract Views 236
Full Text Views 213
Link-outs 15
Captures 31
Exports-Saves 24
Readers 7
Social Media 3
Tweets 3
Citations 3
Citation Indexes 3
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/10869
DOI:
10.1387/theoria.10782
Author(s):
Reiss, Julian
Publisher(s):
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea / Universidad del PaĆ­s Vasco
Tags:
Arts and Humanities
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
review description
This paper surveys and critically assesses existing theories of evidence with respect to four desiderata. A good theory of evidence should be both a theory of evidential support (i.e., be informative about what kinds of facts speak in favour of a hypothesis), and of warrant (i.e., be informative about how strongly a given set of facts speaks in favour of the hypothesis), it should apply to the non-ideal cases in which scientists typically find themselves, and it should be 'descriptively adequate', i.e., able to adequately represent typical episodes of evidentiary reasoning. The theories surveyed here-Bayesianism, hypotheticodeductivism, satisfaction theories, error statistics as well as Achinstein's and Cartwright's theories-are all found wanting in important respects. I finally argue that a deficiency all these theories have in common is a neglect or underplaying of the epistemic context in which the episode of evidentiary reasoning takes place.

This review has 0 Wikipedia mention.