Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:37:47.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence and Hypothesis: An Analysis of Evidential Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Helen E. Longino
Helen E. Longino*
Affiliation:
Mills College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The subject of this essay is the dependence of evidential relations on background beliefs and assumptions. In Part I, two ways in which the relation between evidence and hypothesis is dependent on such assumptions are discussed and it is shown how in the context of appropriately differing background beliefs what is identifiable as the same state of affairs can be taken as evidence for conflicting hypotheses. The dependence of evidential relations on background beliefs is illustrated by discussions of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the discovery of oxygen. In Part II, Hempel's analysis of confirmation and the contrasting model of theory acceptance provided by philosophers such as Kuhn and Feyerabend are discussed. It is argued that both are inadequate (on different grounds) and the problems addressed by each are shown to be more satisfactorily approached by means of the analysis developed in Part I. In Part III, it is argued that if there are objective criteria for deciding between competing theories, these cannot be simply that one theory has greater evidential support than another. Finally, some further methodological questions arising from the analysis are mentioned.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 35 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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

†

I am grateful to the University of California, San Diego, for the sabbatical leave during which much of the research for this essay was done. I am further indebted to members of the Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, and to members of the Southern California branch of the Society for Women in Philosophy for their comments on oral versions of the essay, and to Peter Achinstein and the anonymous referees of Philosophy of Science for their constructive criticisms of earlier drafts.

References

Achinstein, P. (1968), Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press: 92–98.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P. (1971), Law and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 61–84.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B., (1959), “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory,” Harvard Case Studies in Experimental Science (J. B. Conant, ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Feigl and Maxwell, eds.). Vol. III. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 28–97.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1970), “Against Method,” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Radner, and Winokur, , eds.), Vol. IV. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 17–130.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1974), “Zahar on Einstein,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 25, no. 1: 25–28.10.1093/bjps/25.1.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1975), “Relevant Evidence,” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. LXXII, no. 14: 403–425.10.2307/2025011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, A. (1963), Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. New York: Alfred Knopf: esp. pp. 386–397.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation,” Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press: 3–51.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1973), “Einstein, Michelson and the ‘Crucial’ Experiment,” in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: pp. 261–352.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970a), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970b), “Reflections on my Critics,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoisier, A. (1952), Elements of Chemistry. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. (1974), “On Lorentz's Methodology,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 25, no. 1: 29–45.10.1093/bjps/25.1.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1974), “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 25, no. 1: 1–23.10.1093/bjps/25.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffner, K. F. (1974), “Einstein Versus Lorentz: Research Programmes and the Logic of Comparative Theory Evaluation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 25, no. 1: 45–78.10.1093/bjps/25.1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, D. (1964), “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Philosophical Review, Vol. LXXIII.Google Scholar
Zahar, E. (1973), “Why Did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 24: 95–123, 223–262.Google Scholar