确认与归纳

IF 3.2 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2018-07-19 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190690649.003.0002
M. Cozic
{"title":"确认与归纳","authors":"M. Cozic","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190690649.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How are scientific hypotheses and theories assessed against empirical data? Philosophers of science have tried to find out whether there are general principles underlying this activity. This chapter goes through the major types of philosophical theories of confirmation. It starts with two proposals that elaborate criteria of qualitative confirmation on the basis of (deductive) logic: instantialism and hypothetico-deductivism. The main part of the chapter is devoted to Bayesian confirmation theory (BCT), which relies on a probabilistic framework and is able to provide both qualitative and quantitative criteria of confirmation. We discuss in details the strengths and limits of BCT. In the closing section, we address the issue of how BCT (and Bayesianism in general) relate to the problem of induction.","PeriodicalId":55327,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confirmation and Induction\",\"authors\":\"M. Cozic\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780190690649.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How are scientific hypotheses and theories assessed against empirical data? Philosophers of science have tried to find out whether there are general principles underlying this activity. This chapter goes through the major types of philosophical theories of confirmation. It starts with two proposals that elaborate criteria of qualitative confirmation on the basis of (deductive) logic: instantialism and hypothetico-deductivism. The main part of the chapter is devoted to Bayesian confirmation theory (BCT), which relies on a probabilistic framework and is able to provide both qualitative and quantitative criteria of confirmation. We discuss in details the strengths and limits of BCT. In the closing section, we address the issue of how BCT (and Bayesianism in general) relate to the problem of induction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190690649.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190690649.003.0002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如何根据经验数据评估科学假设和理论?科学哲学家试图找出这种活动是否有普遍的原理。本章梳理了哲学确认理论的主要类型。本文首先提出了两种基于(演绎)逻辑的定性确认标准:实例主义和假设演绎主义。本章的主要部分是致力于贝叶斯确认理论(BCT),它依赖于一个概率框架,能够提供定性和定量的确认标准。我们详细讨论了BCT的优势和局限性。在最后一节,我们将讨论BCT(以及一般的贝叶斯主义)与归纳法问题之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Confirmation and Induction
How are scientific hypotheses and theories assessed against empirical data? Philosophers of science have tried to find out whether there are general principles underlying this activity. This chapter goes through the major types of philosophical theories of confirmation. It starts with two proposals that elaborate criteria of qualitative confirmation on the basis of (deductive) logic: instantialism and hypothetico-deductivism. The main part of the chapter is devoted to Bayesian confirmation theory (BCT), which relies on a probabilistic framework and is able to provide both qualitative and quantitative criteria of confirmation. We discuss in details the strengths and limits of BCT. In the closing section, we address the issue of how BCT (and Bayesianism in general) relate to the problem of induction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science encourages the application of philosophical techniques to issues raised by the natural and human sciences. These include general questions of scientific knowledge and objectivity, as well as more particular problems arising within specific disciplines. Topics currently being discussed in the journal include: causation, the logic of natural selection, the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the direction of time, probability, confirmation, foundations of mathematics, supertasks and the theory of emotion.
期刊最新文献
Operationalising Representation in Natural Language Processing Relative Significance Controversies in Evolutionary Biology An accuracy-based approach to quantum conditionalization Track Records: A Cautionary Tale Visual Streams as Core Mechanisms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1