Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor in Philosophy, Tarbiat Madras University

2 Ph.D Student in Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University

3 Associate Professor in Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Bayesians believe that they have solved a significant problem in philosophy of science, which is the identification of the logic which governs evidences. The problem has special importance to philosophy of science, because what eventually distinguishes science from myth is that we have good evidence for the content of science. The core ideas of all versions of Bayesian confirmation theory are that the beliefs are confirmed to a probability measure, and incorporating new evidence is done through conditionalization using Bayes’ rule. Bayesians believe that qualitative approaches to confirmation theory are hopeless; an adequate account of the way evidences support hypotheses and theories must be quantitative, and a quantitative account implicates utilizing the probability calculus. The aim of this paper is to investigate the challenges to confirmation theory by means of the standard Bayesian approach.

Keywords

پوپر، کارل ریموند (۱۳۸۸). منطق اکتشافت علمی، ترجمة سید حسین کمالی، تهران: علمی فرهنگی.
پاپینیو، دیوید (۱۳۸۰). «مسئلة استقرا»، ترجمة امیر مازیار، مجلة اندیشه، سال اول، ش 1.
کارناپ،‌ رودلف (۱۳۶۳). مقدمه‌ای بر فلسفة علم، مبانی فلسفی فیزیک، ترجمة یوسف عفیفی، تهران: نیلوفر.
گیلیس، دانالد (۱۳۸۷). فلسفة علم در قرن بیستم، ترجمة حسن میانداری، تهران: سمت.
گودمن، نلسون (۱۳۸۱). واقعیت، پیش‌بینی، و افسانه، ترجمة رضا گندمی نصرآبادی، قم: دانشگاه مفید.
لازی، جان (۱۳۷۷). درآمدی تاریخی به فلسفة علم، ترجمة علی پایا، تهران: سمت.
نبوی، لطف‌اله (۱۳۸۴). مبانی منطق و روش‌شناسی، تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
همپل، کارل (۱۳۸۰). فلسفة علوم طبیعی، ترجمة حسین معصومی همدانی، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
Aronson, J. (1989). ‘The Bayesians and the Ravens paradox‘. Nous, Vol. 23.
Carnap, Rudolph ( 1950). Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: University of  Chicago Press.
Bayes, T. (1764). ‘An Essay Toward Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1763, 53.
Earman, John (1992). Byes or Bust, Cambridge, MA: Bradford-MIT.
Fitelson, B. (2001). ‘Studies in Bayesian Confermation Theory’, PhD Thesis, University of Wisconsin.
French, S. (1988). ‘A Green Parrot Is Just as Much a Red Herring as a White Shoe: A Note on Confirmation, Background Knowledge, and the Logico-Probabilistic Approach’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38.
Gillies, Donald ( 2000). Philosophical Theories of Probability, London: Routledge.
Glymour, Clark (1980). Theory and Evidence, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goodman, N. (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forcast, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hajek, A. (2009). ‘Interpritations of the Probability Calculus’, In The Satnford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/.
Hawthorn, J. (2008). ‘Inductive Logic’, In The Satnford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/.
Hempel, C. G. (1945). ‘Studies in the Logic of Confirmation’, Mind, Vol. 45.
Howson, C. (2008). ‘Bayesianism’, In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd (eds.), New York: Routledge.
Howson, C. and Urbach (2006). Scientific Reasoning, the Bayesian Approach, La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Keynes, J. M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan.
Lawson, T. (1985). ‘The Context of Prediction (and the Paradox of Confirmation)’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 36.
Norton, John D. (2005). ‘A Little Survey of Induction’, In Scientific Evidence: Philosophical Theories and Applications, P. Achinstein (ed.), Johns Hopkins University Press.
Norton, John D. (2007). ‘Challenges to Bayesian Confirmation Theory’, In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Statistics, Vol. 7, Elsevier.
Popper, Karl, R. (1961). Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Science.
Popper, Karl R. and Miller, David (1983). ‘A Proof of the Impossibility of Inductive Logic’, Nature, Vol. 302.
Ramsey, F. P. (1926). ‘Truth and Probability’, In Studies in Subjective Probability, H. E. Kyburg and H. E. Smokler (eds.), John Wiley.
Renyi, Alfred (1970). Foundations of Probability, San Francisco: Holden-Day In.
Sprenger, Jan (2011). ‘Hempel and the Paradoxes of Confirmation’, In Handbook of the History of Logic, Dov M. Gabbay, Stephan Hartmann and John Woods (eds.), Vol. 10, Inductive Logic, Elsevier.
Suppes, P. (1966). ‘A Bayesian Approach to the Paradoxes of the Ravens’, In Aspects Of Inductive Logic, Hintikka and Suppes (eds.), Amesterdam: North Holland.
Von Mises, R. (1928). Probability, Statistics, and Truth, London: George, Allen and Unwin.
Watkins, J. (1987). ‘Lawson on the Raven Paradox and Background Knowledge’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38.
Weisberg, Jonathan (2011). ‘Varieties of Bayesianism’, In Handbook of the History of Logic, Dov M. Gabbay, Stephan Hartmann and John Woods (eds.), Vol. 10, Inductive Logic, Elsevier.