Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T06:14:15.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Second Look at the Logic of Explanatory Power (with Two Novel Representation Theorems)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Vincenzo Crupi  and
Katya Tentori
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We discuss the probabilistic analysis of explanatory power and prove a representation theorem for posterior ratio measures recently advocated by Schupbach and Sprenger. We then prove a representation theorem for an alternative class of measures that rely on the notion of relative probability distance. We end up endorsing the latter, as relative distance measures share the properties of posterior ratio measures that are genuinely appealing, while overcoming a feature that we consider undesirable. They also yield a telling result concerning formal accounts of explanatory power versus inductive confirmation, thereby bridging our discussion to a so-called no-miracle argument.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 365 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

We thank Jonah Schupbach, Jan Sprenger, Valeriano Iranzo, and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments and exchanges concerning this work. Our research has been supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Italian Ministry of Scientific Research (PRIN grant 20083NAH2L_001), and the Spanish Department of Science and Innovation (grant FFI2008-01169/FISO).

References

Crupi, Vincenzo. 2012. “An Argument for Not Equating Confirmation and Explanatory Power.” Reasoner 6 (3): 39–40.. Erratum, Reasoner 6 (4): 68Google Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, Festa, Roberto, and Buttasi, Carlo. 2010. “Towards a Grammar of Bayesian Confirmation.” In Epistemology and Methodology of Science, ed. Suárez, Mauricio, Dorato, Mauro, and Rédei, Miklós, 73–93. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, and Tentori, Katya. 2010. “Irrelevant Conjunction: Statement and Solution of a New Paradox.” Philosophy of Science 77:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, and Tentori, Katya. Forthcoming. “Confirmation as Partial Entailment: A Representation Theorem in Inductive Logic.” Journal of Applied Logic.Google Scholar
Crupi, Vincenzo, Tentori, Katya, and Gonzalez, Michel. 2007. “On Bayesian Measures of Evidential Support: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Philosophy of Science 74:229–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 2005. “Inductive Logic.” In Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, ed. Sarkar, Sahotra and Pfeifer, Jessica, 384–93. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 2006. “Logical Foundations of Evidential Support.” Philosophy of Science 73:500–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, Irving John. 1960. “Weight of Evidence, Corroboration, Explanatory Power, Information and the Utility of Experiments.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 22:319–31.Google Scholar
Kemeny, John, and Oppenheim, Paul. 1952. “Degrees of Factual Support.” Philosophy of Science 19:307–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrew, Timothy. 2003. “Confirmation, Heuristics, and Explanatory Reasoning.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54:553–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka, and Tuomela, Raimo. 1973. Theoretical Concepts and Hypothetico-Inductive Inference. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietarinen, Juhani. 1970. “Quantitative Tools for Evaluating Scientific Systematizations.” In Information and Inference, ed. Hintikka, Jaakko and Suppes, Patrick, 123–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schupbach, Jonah, and Sprenger, Jan. 2011. “The Logic of Explanatory Power.” Philosophy of Science 78:105–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tentori, Katya, Crupi, Vincenzo, and Osherson, Daniel. 2007. “Determinants of Confirmation.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14:877–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tentori, Katya, Crupi, Vincenzo, and Osherson, Daniel. 2010. “Second-Order Probability Affects Hypothesis Confirmation.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17:129–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Worrall, John. 2006. “Miracles, Pessimism, and Scientific Realism.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method, London School of Economics. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/WhosWho/staffhomepages/Publications/NMAandPIfinal.pdf.Google Scholar