Skip Navigation

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1994 45(1):1-35; doi:10.1093/bjps/45.1.1
© 1994 by British Society for the Philosophy of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by FORSTER, M.
Right arrow Articles by SOBER, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Articles

How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories will Provide More Accurate Predictions

MALCOLM FORSTER and ELLIOTT SOBER *

Department of Philosophy University of Wisconsin Madison 53706

Traditional analyses of the curve fitting problem maintain that the data do not indicate what form the fitted curve should take. Rather, this issue is said to be settled by prior probabilities, by simplicity, or by a background theory. In this paper, we describe a result due to Akaike [1973], which shows how the data can underwrite an inference concerning the curve's form based on an estimate of how predictively accurate it will be. We argue that this approach throws light on the theoretical virtues of parsimoniousness, unification, and non ad hocness, on the dispute about Bayesianism, and on empiricism and scientific realism.

* Both of us gratefully acknowledge support from the Graduate School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and NSF grant DIR-8822278 (M.F.) and NSF grant SBE-9212294 (E.S.). Special thanks go to A. W. F. Edwards.William Harper. Martin Leckey. Brian Skyrms, and especially Peter Turney for helpful comments on an earlier draft.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
F. Scherbaum, E. Delavaud, and C. Riggelsen
Model Selection in Seismic Hazard Analysis: An Information-Theoretic Perspective
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 2009; 99(6): 3234 - 3247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PaleobiologyHome page
G. Hunt
Gradual or pulsed evolution: when should punctuational explanations be preferred?
Paleobiology, September 1, 2008; 34(3): 360 - 377.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J Philos SciHome page
D. L. Dowe, S. Gardner, and G. Oppy
Bayes not Bust! Why Simplicity is no Problem for Bayesians
Brit J Philos Sci, December 1, 2007; 58(4): 709 - 754.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
K. P. Burnham and D. R. Anderson
Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection
Sociological Methods Research, November 1, 2004; 33(2): 261 - 304.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.