Skip Navigation


The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Advance Access originally published online on May 16, 2007
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2007 58(2):333-338; doi:10.1093/bjps/axm012
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/2/333    most recent
axm012v1
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 Fitelson, B.
Right arrow Articles by Waterman, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science.

Comparative Bayesian Confirmation and the Quine–Duhem Problem: A Rejoinder to Strevens

Branden Fitelson

Philosophy Department, University of California-Berkeley

Andrew Waterman

Independent Scholar

branden{at}fitelson.org

awaterman{at}stanfordalumni.org


  Abstract

By and large, we think (Strevens's [2005]) is a useful reply to our original critique (Fitelson and Waterman [2005]) of his article on the Quine–Duhem (QD) problem (Strevens [2001]). But, we remain unsatisfied with several aspects of his reply (and his original article). Ultimately, we do not think he properly addresses our most important worries. In this brief rejoinder, we explain our remaining worries, and we issue a revised challenge for Strevens's approach to QD.

1 Strevens's ‘clarifications’
2 Strevens's new-and-improved ‘negligibility arguments’


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




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.