Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:11:30.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: Howson and Franklin on Prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Patrick Maher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Abstract

Evidence for a hypothesis typically confirms the hypothesis more if the evidence was predicted than if it was accommodated. Or so I argued in previous papers, where I also developed an analysis of why this should be so. But this was all a mistake if Howson and Franklin (1991) are to be believed. In this paper, I show why they are not to be believed. I also identify a grain of truth that may have been dimly grasped by those Bayesians who deny the confirmatory value of prediction.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

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

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 105 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

References

Horwich, P. (1982), Probability and Evidence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howson, C. and Franklin, A. (1991), “Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism”, Philosophy of Science 58: 574585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. (1921), A Treatise on Probability. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Maher, P. (1988), “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery”, in Fine, A. and Leplin, J. (eds.), PSA 1988, vol. 1. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 273285.Google Scholar
Maher, P. (1990), “How Prediction Enhances Confirmation”, in Dunn, J. M. and Gupta, A., (eds.), J. M. Dunn and A. Gupta, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 327343.Google Scholar