Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:46:19.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationality and Total Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Andrew McLaughlin
Andrew McLaughlin*
Affiliation:
Lehman College, City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The meaning and justification of the requirement of total evidence are examined. It is argued that there are several significantly different interpretations of the requirement, but each interpretation makes the requirement highly suspect. For any of the usual interpretations of the requirement, it would be quite unreasonable to conduct inquiry in such a way as to fulfill it. It is then suggested that the rational inquirer should seek the optimal amount of evidence, rather than all the evidence. This raises the problems surrounding the idea of scientific or epistemic utility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 271 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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

†

This is a slightly revised version of a paper read at the Cleveland meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, May 1969. I am indebted to Stephen Spielman for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

[1] Ayer, A. J., “The Concept of Probability as a Logical Relation,” in Observation and Interpretation (ed. S. Korner), Butterworth, 1957, pp. 12–30.Google Scholar
[2] Carnap, R., Logical Foundations of Probability, 2nd edit., University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[3] Carnap, R., “Replies and Systematic Expositions,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. Schilpp, P. A.), Open Court, 1963.Google Scholar
[4] Churchman, C. W., “Science and Decision Making,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 23, No. 3, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Good, I. J., “On the principle of Total Evidence,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 17, No. 4, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Hempel, C. G., Aspects of Scientific Explanation, Free Press, 1965.Google Scholar
[7] Hempel, C. G., “Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 35, 1968, pp. 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Kemeny, J. G., “Carnap's Theory of Probability and Induction,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. Schilpp, P. A.), Open Court, 1963.Google Scholar
[9] Levi, I., Gambling With Truth, Knopf, 1967.Google Scholar
[10] Massey, G. G., “Hempel's Criterion of Maximal Specificity,” Philosophical Studies, vol. 19, No. 3, 1968.10.1007/BF00372442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Rudner, R., “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 20, No. 1, 1953.Google Scholar
[12] Suppes, P., “Probabilistic Inference and the Concept of Total Evidence,” in Aspects of Inductive Logic (eds. J. Hintikka and P. Suppes), North-Holland, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar