Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:56:38.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Utility and the Evaluation of Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Isaac Levi
Isaac Levi*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

William K. Goosens claims to show that my account of epistemic utility runs into serious difficulties when confronted with certain attractive conditions of adequacy for the evaluation of experiments. I show that those conditions of adequacy which are, indeed, acceptable to both of us are satisfied by the procedures for evaluating experiments mandated by combining my theory of epistemic utilities with the approach to evaluating experiments on which Goosens' argument is based. In particular, I demonstrate that my theory does not violate the requirement that an “ideal experiment” be no worse than any alternative experiment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1977 , pp. 368 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Good, I.J. “On the Principle of Total Evidence,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (1967): 319–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Goosens, W. K., “A Critique of Epistemic Utilities.” In Local Induction. Ed. by Bogdan, R. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Pp. 93–113.10.1007/978-94-011-9799-1_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Hilpinen, R., Rules of Acceptance and Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1968.Google Scholar
[4] Hintikka, J. and Pietarinen, J., “Semantic Information and Inductive Logic.” In Aspects of Inductive Logic. Ed. by Hintikka, J. and Suppes, P. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1966. Pp. 96–112.10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71665-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Levi, I. “Corroboration and Rules of Acceptance.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13 (1963): 307–313.10.1093/bjps/XIII.52.307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Levi, I. Gambling with Truth. New York: Knopf, 1967.Google Scholar
[7] Levi, I. “Information and Inference.” Synthese 19 (1967): 369–391.10.1007/BF00485040CrossRefGoogle Scholar