# Confirmation, Increase in Probability, and the Likelihood Ratio Measure: a Reply to Glass and McCartney

*Acta Analytica*32 (4):491-513 (2017)

# Abstract

Bayesian confirmation theory is rife with confirmation measures. Zalabardo focuses on the probability difference measure, the probability ratio measure, the likelihood difference measure, and the likelihood ratio measure. He argues that the likelihood ratio measure is adequate, but each of the other three measures is not. He argues for this by setting out three adequacy conditions on confirmation measures and arguing in effect that all of them are met by the likelihood ratio measure but not by any of the other three measures. Glass and McCartney, hereafter “G&M,” accept the conclusion of Zalabardo’s argument along with each of the premises in it. They nonetheless try to improve on Zalabardo’s argument by replacing his third adequacy condition with a weaker condition. They do this because of a worry to the effect that Zalabardo’s third adequacy condition runs counter to the idea behind his first adequacy condition. G&M have in mind confirmation in the sense of increase in probability: the degree to which E confirms H is a matter of the degree to which E increases H’s probability. I call this sense of confirmation “IP.” I set out four ways of precisifying IP. I call them “IP1,” “IP2,” “IP3,” and “IP4.” Each of them is based on the assumption that the degree to which E increases H’s probability is a matter of the distance between p and a certain other probability involving H. I then evaluate G&M’s argument in light of them.# Author's Profile

# DOI

10.1007/s12136-017-0322-7

# Analytics

**Added to PP**

2017-03-13

**Downloads**

408 (#20,940)

**6 months**

53 (#17,640)

**Historical graph of downloads since first upload**

*This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.*