Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T22:16:00.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Error Statistics and Duhem's Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Gregory R. Wheeler
Gregory R. Wheeler*
Affiliation:
Departments of Philosophy and Computer Science, University of Rochester
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, 534 Lattimore Hall, Rochester NY 14627; email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No one has a well developed solution to Duhem's problem, the problem of how experimental evidence warrants revision of our theories. Deborah Mayo proposes a solution to Duhem's problem in route to her more ambitious program of providing a philosophical account of inductive inference and experimental knowledge. This paper is a response to Mayo's Error Statistics (ES) program, paying particular attention to her response to Duhem's problem. It turns out that Mayo's purported solution to Duhem's problem is very significant to her project, for the epistemic license claimed by ES and the philosophical underpinnings to her account of experimental knowledge depend on this solution. By introducing the partition problem, I argue that ES fails to solve Duhem's problem and therefore fails to provide an adequate account of experimental knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 410 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by 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

‡

Previous versions of this paper were presented at Cornell University, University of Rochester, M.I.T., and University of Lethbridge. The author wishes to thank Prasanta Bandypadhyay, Earl Conee, Heidi Dankosh, Joe Halpern, Deborah Mayo, and especially Henry Kyburg and an anonymous referee for their comments.

References

Ariew, Roger (1984), “The Duhem Thesis”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 313–25.10.1093/bjps/35.4.313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariew, Roger and Barker, P. (eds.), (1996), Pierre Duhem: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre ([1906] 1954), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Reprint. Translated by P. P. Wiener. Originally published as La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, et sa Structure (Paris: Marcel Rivière & Cie). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1956), Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf (1960), “The Duhemian Argument”, Philosophy of Science 27: 75–87.10.1086/287714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin (1997), “A Logic of Induction”, Philosophy of Science 64: 268–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. Jr. (1983), Epistemology and Inference. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. Jr. (1990), “Theories as Mere Conventions”, in Savage, Wade, (ed.), Scientific Theories: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 158–74.Google Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. Jr. (1997), “Combinatory Semantics”, Computational Intelligence 13: 215–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imré (1978), “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in Worrall, John and Currie, G., (eds.), Philosophical Papers: Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, A., (eds.), (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1997), “How about Bust? Factoring Explanatory Power Back into Theory Evaluation”, Philosophy of Science 64: 306–316.10.1086/392553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1996a), “Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn's-eye view of Popper's Demarcation of Science”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 271–90.10.1093/bjps/47.2.271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1996b), Error Statistics and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1997a), “Severe Tests, Arguing from Error, and Methodological Underdetermination”, Philosophical Studies 86: 243–66.10.1023/A:1017925128970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1997b), “Error Statistics and Learning From Error: Making a Virtue of Necessity”, Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S195–S212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1997c), “Duhem's Problem, The Bayesian Way, and Error Statistics, or ‘What's Belief Got to Do With It’?”, Philosophy of Science 64: 222–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah G. (1997d), “Response to Howson and Laudan”, Philosophy of Science 64: 323–333.10.1086/392555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. (1969), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/quin92204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1969), “Models of Data”, in Suppes, Patrick, (ed.), Studies in the Methodology and Foundations of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 24–35.10.1007/978-94-017-3173-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, John (1993), “Falsification, Rationality, and the Duhem Problem”, in Earman, John, Janis, A., Massey, G., and Rescher, N., (eds.), Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds: Essays on the Philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar