Skip Navigation



The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Advance Access published online on September 9, 2005
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, doi:10.1093/bjps/axi133
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
56/4/913    most recent
axi133v1
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 Strevens, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2005). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Article

The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses: Reply to Fitelson and Waterman

Michael Strevens 1*

1 Department of Philosophy, New York University, 503 Silver Center, 100 Washington Square East, New York, NY 10003

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Michael Strevens, E-mail: strevens{at}nyu.edu


  Abstract

Fitelson and Waterman's ([2005]) principal objection to Strevens's ([2001]) Bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses rests on a misinterpretation of Strevens's central claim about the negligibility of certain small probabilities. The present paper clarifies and proves a very general version of the claim.

1 The project

2 Clarifications

3 The negligibility argument

4 Generalization and proof


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
 Br J Philos SciHome page
B. Fitelson and A. Waterman
Comparative Bayesian Confirmation and the Quine-Duhem Problem: A Rejoinder to Strevens
Brit J Philos Sci, June 1, 2007; 58(2): 333 - 338.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [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.