Climenhaga, N. (2017). How explanation guides confirmation. Philosophy of Science: official journal of the Philosophy of Science Association,84(2), 359-368. United States of America: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/690723
Where E is the proposition that [If H and O were true, H would explain O], William Roche and Elliot Sober have argued that P(H | O&E) = P(H | O). In this article I argue that not only is this equality not generally true, it is false in the very kinds of cases that Roche and Sober focus on, involving frequency data. In fact, in such cases O raises the probability of H only given that there is an explanatory connection between them.
Dianoia Institute of Philosophy
Access may be restricted.