Empirical evidence claims are a priori

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

This paper responds to Achinstein's criticism of the thesis that the only empirical fact that can affect the truth of an objective evidence claim such as 'e is evidence for h' (or 'e confirms h to degree r') is the truth of e. It shows that cases involving evidential flaws, which form the basis for Achinstein's objections to the thesis, can satisfactorily be accounted for by appeal to changes in background information and working assumptions. The paper also argues that the a priori and empirical accounts of evidence are on a par when we consider scientific practice, but that a study of artificial intelligence might serve to differentiate them.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2821-2834
Number of pages14
JournalSynthese
Volume190
Issue number14
Early online date17 May 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2013
EventThe British Society for the Philosophy of Science Annual Conference 2011 - University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
Duration: 7 Jul 20118 Jul 2011
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/2011bsps/

Fingerprint

evidence
artificial intelligence
appeal
criticism
Empirical Evidence
Artificial Intelligence
Evidentials
Scientific Practice
Criticism

Bibliographical note

The same paper is presented at the 2011 Annual Conference of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, Manchester, United Kingdom, 7-8 July 2011.

Keywords

  • A priori thesis
  • Achinstein
  • Confirmation
  • Evidence
  • Working assumptions

Cite this

ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick. / Empirical evidence claims are a priori. In: Synthese. 2013 ; Vol. 190, No. 14. pp. 2821-2834.
@article{6f19c42e41e842a1bbaa45b27c981fad,
title = "Empirical evidence claims are a priori",
abstract = "This paper responds to Achinstein's criticism of the thesis that the only empirical fact that can affect the truth of an objective evidence claim such as 'e is evidence for h' (or 'e confirms h to degree r') is the truth of e. It shows that cases involving evidential flaws, which form the basis for Achinstein's objections to the thesis, can satisfactorily be accounted for by appeal to changes in background information and working assumptions. The paper also argues that the a priori and empirical accounts of evidence are on a par when we consider scientific practice, but that a study of artificial intelligence might serve to differentiate them.",
keywords = "A priori thesis, Achinstein, Confirmation, Evidence, Working assumptions",
author = "ROWBOTTOM, {Darrell Patrick}",
note = "The same paper is presented at the 2011 Annual Conference of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, Manchester, United Kingdom, 7-8 July 2011.",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s11229-012-0087-x",
language = "English",
volume = "190",
pages = "2821--2834",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "14",

}

Empirical evidence claims are a priori. / ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick.

In: Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 14, 09.2013, p. 2821-2834.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Empirical evidence claims are a priori

AU - ROWBOTTOM, Darrell Patrick

N1 - The same paper is presented at the 2011 Annual Conference of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science, Manchester, United Kingdom, 7-8 July 2011.

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - This paper responds to Achinstein's criticism of the thesis that the only empirical fact that can affect the truth of an objective evidence claim such as 'e is evidence for h' (or 'e confirms h to degree r') is the truth of e. It shows that cases involving evidential flaws, which form the basis for Achinstein's objections to the thesis, can satisfactorily be accounted for by appeal to changes in background information and working assumptions. The paper also argues that the a priori and empirical accounts of evidence are on a par when we consider scientific practice, but that a study of artificial intelligence might serve to differentiate them.

AB - This paper responds to Achinstein's criticism of the thesis that the only empirical fact that can affect the truth of an objective evidence claim such as 'e is evidence for h' (or 'e confirms h to degree r') is the truth of e. It shows that cases involving evidential flaws, which form the basis for Achinstein's objections to the thesis, can satisfactorily be accounted for by appeal to changes in background information and working assumptions. The paper also argues that the a priori and empirical accounts of evidence are on a par when we consider scientific practice, but that a study of artificial intelligence might serve to differentiate them.

KW - A priori thesis

KW - Achinstein

KW - Confirmation

KW - Evidence

KW - Working assumptions

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2537

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84888071946&doi=10.1007%2fs11229-012-0087-x&partnerID=40&md5=285b9e56aed008899c5ac7a988ed987c

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-012-0087-x

DO - 10.1007/s11229-012-0087-x

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 190

SP - 2821

EP - 2834

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 14

ER -