|
| Hacking's
book
from
|
|
 |
|
 |
Hacking's book from 1965 is great for its time , but he renounced the law of lieilkhood shortly after. The problem is that one can always find rival hypothesis H2, such that H1 is maximally likely on the data. Since one can readily do so even when H2 is false, this is a terrible rule for evidence. Plus there's the fact that additional inferences are needed to get the statement comprising evidence x and to warrant the underlying statistical model. As Hacking came to see, at least as I read him, the presumption that there's such a thing as a formal logic of evidence is just a holdover from outdated and rejected logicist philosophies based on the tenets of logical empiricism. If you look for lieilkhood on this blog, and Hacking's review of Edward's book, you'll find at least one place.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Estefania
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
16 december 2014, 15:43:49
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
62.210.78.179
|
|
|
|
