Objectivity in confirmation: Post hoc monsters and novel predictions

Citation data:

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, ISSN: 0039-3681, Vol: 45, Issue: 1, Page: 70-78

Publication Year:
2014
Usage 302
Abstract Views 118
Link-outs 113
Downloads 71
Captures 21
Readers 14
Exports-Saves 7
Mentions 1
References 1
Social Media 2
Tweets 2
Citations 3
Citation Indexes 3
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12928
DOI:
10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.10.009
Author(s):
Votsis, Ioannis
Publisher(s):
Elsevier BV
Tags:
Arts and Humanities
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
The aim of this paper is to put in place some cornerstones in the foundations for an objective theory of confirmation by considering lessons from the failures of predictivism. Discussion begins with a widely accepted challenge, to find out what is needed in addition to the right kind of inferential–semantical relations between hypothesis and evidence to have a complete account of confirmation, one that gives a definitive answer to the question whether hypotheses branded as “post hoc monsters” can be confirmed. The predictivist view is then presented as a way to meet this challenge. Particular attention is paid to Worrall’s version of predictivism, as it appears to be the most sophisticated of the lot. It is argued that, despite its faults, his view turns our heads in the right direction by attempting to remove contingent considerations from confirmational matters. The demand to remove such considerations becomes the first of four cornerstones. Each cornerstone is put in place with the aim to steer clear of the sort of failures that plague various kinds of predictivism. In the process, it becomes obvious that the original challenge is wrongheaded and in need of revision. The paper ends with just such a revision.