Bayesian Confirmation and Auxiliary Hypotheses Revisited: A Reply to Strevens

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science - United Kingdom
doi 10.1093/bjps/axi117
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date
Authors
Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Related search

SD-squared Revisited: Reply to Coltheart, Tree, and Saunders (2010).

Psychological Review
Philosophy of SciencePsychologyHistory
2010English

Confirmation and the Generalized Nagel–Schaffner Model of Reduction: A Bayesian Analysis

Synthese
PhilosophySocial Sciences
2017English

The Coevolution of Data and Hypotheses in Bayesian Cultural Evolution

2018English

The Demanding Patient Revisited—Reply

JAMA Oncology
Cancer ResearchOncology
2015English

Using Bayesian Regression to Test Hypotheses About Relationships Between Parameters and Covariates in Cognitive Models

Behavior Research Methods
DevelopmentalArtsPsychologyEducational PsychologyCognitive PsychologyHumanitiesExperimental
2017English

Illustrating Bayesian Evaluation of Informative Hypotheses for Regression Models

Frontiers in Psychology
Psychology
2012English

The Arrhenius Equation Revisited (Author's Reply)

Journal of Chemical Education
ChemistryEducation
1999English

The Bell Curve Revisited: Testing Controversial Hypotheses With Molecular Genetic Data

Sociological Science
Social Sciences
2016English

Intuitive Logic Revisited: New Data and a Bayesian Mixed Model Meta-Analysis

PLoS ONE
Multidisciplinary
2014English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy