Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. History and nature of the Jeffreys–Lindley paradox.Eric-Jan Wagenmakers & Alexander Ly - 2023 - Archive for History of Exact Sciences 77 (1):25-72.
    The Jeffreys–Lindley paradox exposes a rift between Bayesian and frequentist hypothesis testing that strikes at the heart of statistical inference. Contrary to what most current literature suggests, the paradox was central to the Bayesian testing methodology developed by Sir Harold Jeffreys in the late 1930s. Jeffreys showed that the evidence for a point-null hypothesis $${\mathcal {H}}_0$$ H 0 scales with $$\sqrt{n}$$ n and repeatedly argued that it would, therefore, be mistaken to set a threshold for rejecting $${\mathcal {H}}_0$$ H 0 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Harold Jeffreys' probabilistic epistemology: Between logicism and subjectivism.Maria Carla Galavotti - 2003 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (1):43-57.
    Harold Jeffreys' ideas on the interpretation of probability and epistemology are reviewed. It is argued that with regard to the interpretation of probability, Jeffreys embraces a version of logicism that shares some features of the subjectivism of Ramsey and de Finetti. Jeffreys also developed a probabilistic epistemology, characterized by a pragmatical and constructivist attitude towards notions such as ‘objectivity’, ‘reality’ and ‘causality’. 1 Introductory remarks 2 The interpretation of probability 3 Jeffreys' probabilistic epistemology.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A paradigm-based solution to the Riddle of induction.Mark A. Changizi & Timothy P. Barber - 1998 - Synthese 117 (3):419-484.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Pluralists about Pluralism? Versions of Explanatory Pluralism in Psychiatry.Jeroen Van Bouwel - 2014 - In Thomas Uebel (ed.), New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. Cham: Springer. pp. 105-119.
    In this contribution, I comment on Raffaella Campaner’s defense of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry (in this volume). In her paper, Campaner focuses primarily on explanatory pluralism in contrast to explanatory reductionism. Furthermore, she distinguishes between pluralists who consider pluralism to be a temporary state on the one hand and pluralists who consider it to be a persisting state on the other hand. I suggest that it would be helpful to distinguish more than those two versions of pluralism – different understandings (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations