The Irrelevance of Bootstrapping

@article{Christensen1990TheIO,
  title={The Irrelevance of Bootstrapping},
  author={David Christensen},
  journal={Philosophy of Science},
  year={1990},
  volume={57},
  pages={644 - 662}
}
  • D. Christensen
  • Published 1 December 1990
  • Mathematics
  • Philosophy of Science
The main appeal of the currently popular "bootstrap" account of confirmation developed by Clark Glymour is that it seems to provide an account of evidential relevance. This account has, however, had severe problems; and Glymour has revised his original account in an attempt to solve them. I argue that this attempt fails completely, and that any similar modifications must also fail. If the problems can be solved, it will only be by radical revisions which involve jettisoning bootstrapping's… Expand
Toward a Defensible Bootstrapping
TLDR
An amended bootstrapping can avoid Christensen's counterexamples and is defended against the charge that it is holistic, and that it collapses into Bayesianism. Expand
Confirmation of Theoretical Hypotheses: Bootstrapping with a Bayesian Face
TLDR
It is argued that the Bayesian method, taken alone, is not sufficient for testing theoretical hypotheses, but that, when combined with bootstrapping, can in principle yield such a method. Expand
Bootstrap Confirmation Made Quantitative
TLDR
The present paper extends Glymour’s theory of bootstrap confirmation to a quantitative account and investigates the resulting theory in some detail, and considers the question howBootstrap confirmation relates to justification. Expand
Hypothetico-Deductivism is Still Hopeless
Since Christensen refuted the Bootstrap theory of confirmation in 1990, there have been some trials to improve the Hypothetico-Deductive theory of confirmation. After some trials, Gemes (1998)Expand
Confirmation of Scientific Hypotheses as Relations
SummaryIn spite of several attempts to explicate the relationship between a scientific hypothesis and evidence, the issue still cries for a satisfactory solution. Logical approaches to confirmation,Expand
The Other Kind of Confirmation ( aka In Praise of Instance Confirmation )
It is argued that the relation of instance confirmation has a role to play in scientific methodology that complements, rather than competing with, a modern account of inductive support such asExpand
What is Relative Confirmation
It is commonly acknowledged that, in order to test a theoretical hypothesis, one must, in Duhem's phrase, rely on a "theoretical scaffolding" to connect the hypothesis with something measurable.Expand
CHOMSKY, DEFENSOR DE LAS CONTRASTACIONES CRUCIALES
Noam Chomsky (who has probably been the most acclaimed linguist in history) assumes, wrongly, that there are crucial contrastations in science. If a hypothesis belonging to theory x is confirmed, weExpand
Theories of Confirmation in Which Hypotheses Do Not Have Probabilities
In this chapter, I consider three theories of evidence, namely, hypothetico-deductivism, Carl Hempel’s “satisfaction” theory, and Deborah Mayo’s “error-statistical” theory. These theories areExpand
Hegel’s Semantics of Singular Cognitive Reference, Newton’s Methodological Rule 4 and Scientific Realism Today (*)
Empirical investigations use empirical methods, data, and evidence. This banal observation appears to favour empiricism, especially in philosophy of science, though no rationalist ever denied theirExpand
...
1
2
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 11 REFERENCES
Glymour on Evidential Relevance
Glymour's "bootstrap" account of confirmation is designed to provide an analysis of evidential relevance, which has been a serious problem for hypothetico-deductivism. As set out in Theory andExpand
Glymour on Confirmation
Glymour has developed an account of the confirmation of scientific hypotheses which he advocates as an alternative to the hypothetico-deductive and Bayesian accounts. This account is subject to aExpand
Revisions of Bootstrap Testing
  • C. Glymour
  • Computer Science
  • Philosophy of Science
  • 1983
TLDR
David Christensen (1983) has produced a series of counterexamples which show that the formal characterization of Theory and Evidence is untenable, and the question remains whether the failure is due to an oversight in the formal theory or to the falsity of the very idea that there are structural criteria for evidential relevance. Expand
What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need? A Reply
A familiar fact is that we use our background knowledge and some of our hypotheses in arguing for or against other hypotheses. But the structure of such arguments is difficult to capture. Glymour'sExpand
Relevance Logic Brings Hope to Hypothetico-Deductivism
  • C. Waters
  • Mathematics
  • Philosophy of Science
  • 1987
Clark Glymour has argued that hypothetico-deductivism, which many take to be an important method of scientific confirmation, is hopeless because it cannot be reconstructed in classical logic. SuchExpand
From Relative Confirmation to Real Confirmation
  • A. Edidin
  • Mathematics
  • Philosophy of Science
  • 1988
Recent work on the logical theory of confirmation has centered on accounts of the confirmation of hypotheses relative to auxiliary assumptions or background theory. Whether such relative confirmationExpand
What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need
The promiscuity of bootstrapping
Explanations of Irrelevance
  • Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science
  • 1983
Explanations of Irrelevance " , Minnesota Studies in the
  • Philosophy of Science
  • 1983
...
1
2
...