Bayesian and Evidential Paradigms

The first step is to distinguish two questions: 1. Given the data, what should we believe, and to what degree? 2. What kind of evidence do the data provide for a hypothesis H 1 as against an alternative hypothesis H 2 , and how much? We call the first the “confirmation”, the second the “evidence” question. Many different answers to each have been given. In order to make the distinction between them as intuitive and precise as possible, we answer the first in a Bayesian way: a hypothesis is confirmed to the extent that the data raise the probability that it is true. We answer the second question in a Likelihoodist way, that is, data constitute evidence for a hypothesis as against any of its rivals to the extent that they are more likely on it than on them. These two simple ideas are very different, but both can be made precise, and each has a great deal of explanatory power. At the same time, they enforce corollary distinctions between “data” and “evidence”, and between different ways in which the concept of “probability” is to be interpreted. An Appendix explains how our likelihoodist account of evidence deals with composite hypotheses.

[1]  Hans Reichenbach,et al.  The theory of probability , 1968 .

[2]  Matthew Kotzen Dragging and Confirming , 2012 .

[3]  Subhash R. Lele,et al.  Evidence, Evidence Functions, and Error Probabilities , 2011 .

[4]  R. Royall,et al.  The Likelihood Paradigm for Statistical Evidence , 2004 .

[5]  John Earman,et al.  Bayes or bust , 1992 .

[6]  Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Two Dogmas of Strong Objective Bayesianism , 2010 .

[7]  R. Royall Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .

[8]  Bruce G. Lindsay Statistical Distances as Loss Functions in Assessing Model Adequacy , 2004 .

[9]  Mark Kaplan Decision Theory as Philosophy , 1983, Philosophy of Science.

[10]  Christopher Hitchcock,et al.  Prediction Versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting , 2004, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[11]  N. Chater,et al.  New Axioms for Probability and Likelihood Ratio Measures , 2013, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[12]  Peter Achinstein,et al.  The Concept of Evidence , 1984 .

[13]  D. Lewis A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance , 1980 .

[14]  Subhash R. Lele,et al.  Evidence Functions and the Optimality of the Law of Likelihood , 2004 .

[15]  E. Eells,et al.  Measuring Confirmation and Evidence , 2000 .

[16]  Mark L. Taper,et al.  Model structure adequacy analysis: selecting models on the basis of their ability to answer scientific questions , 2008, Synthese.

[17]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[18]  Elliott Sober,et al.  Epistemology for empiricists , 1993 .

[19]  Alan Hájek,et al.  “Mises redux” — Redux: Fifteen arguments against finite frequentism , 1996, Erkenntnis.

[20]  Deborah G. Mayo,et al.  Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge , 1996 .

[21]  GianCarlo Ghirardi,et al.  Quantum dynamical reduction and reality: Replacing probability densities with densities in real space , 1996, Erkenntnis.

[22]  Peter Achinstein,et al.  The Book of Evidence , 2001 .

[23]  B. Silverman Density estimation for statistics and data analysis , 1986 .

[24]  J. Berkovitz The Propensity Interpretation of Probability: A Re-evaluation , 2015 .

[25]  S. Spear,et al.  The Nature of Scientific Evidence , 2007 .

[26]  J. Keynes A Treatise on Probability. , 1923 .

[27]  Mark L. Taper,et al.  Evidential statistics as a statistical modern synthesis to support 21st century science , 2015, Population Ecology.

[28]  Timothy Williamson,et al.  Knowledge and Its Limits , 2000 .

[29]  Ward Edwards,et al.  Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. , 1963 .

[30]  Branden Fitelson The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity , 1999, Philosophy of Science.