Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:24:47.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vassend on Verisimilitude and Counterfactual Probabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ilkka Niiniluoto
Ilkka Niiniluoto*
Affiliation:
To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, History, and Art Studies, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland; e-mail: ilkka.niiniluoto@helsinki.fi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Olav Benjamin Vassend proposes two solutions to the “interpretive problem” of assigning nonzero probabilities to hypotheses that are known to be false. He argues that the verisimilitude interpretation (probability expresses the degree of belief that the hypothesis is closest to the truth) and the counterfactual interpretation (probability is conditional on a false supposition) are equivalent. While Vassend’s intuition about these two solutions is basically correct, the technical details of his treatment need elaboration and correction. Appropriate tools for combining verisimilitude and Bayesian probabilities can be found in my Truthlikeness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 3 , July 2021 , pp. 554 - 561
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

References

Hilpinen, Risto. 1976. ”Approximate Truth and Truthlikeness.” In Formal Methods in the Methodology of the Empirical Sciences, ed. Przelecki, Marian, Szaniawski, Klemens, and Wojcicki, Ryszard, 19–42. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 1977. “On the Truthlikeness of Generalizations.” In Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, ed. Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, Jaakko, 121–47. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 1987. Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 2005. “Inductive Logic, Verisimilitude, and Machine Learning.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress, ed. Hajek, Petr, Valdés-Villanueva, Luis, and Westerståhl, Dag, 295–314. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 2020. “Truthlikeness: Old and New Debates.” Synthese 197:1581–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, Graham. 1986. Likeness to Truth. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, Graham. 2014. “Truthlikeness.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. .Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner. 1970. “Scientific Inference.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, ed. Colodny, R. C., 79–172. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sprenger, Jan. 2017. “Conditional Degrees of Belief.” Unpublished manuscript, PhilSci Archive. .Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1962. “Models of Data.” In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, ed. Nagel, E., Suppes, P., and Tarski, A., 252–61. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Vassend, Olav Benjamin. 2019. “New Semantics for Bayesian Inference.” Philosophy of Science 86 (4): 696–718..CrossRefGoogle Scholar