The Selective Confirmation Answer to the Paradox of the Ravens

References

• Bandyopadhyay, P. S., and G. G. Brittan. 2006. “Acceptability, Evidence, and Severity.” Synthese 148: 259–293. doi: 10.1007/s11229-004-6222-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandyopadhyay, P. S., G. G. Brittan, and M. L. Taper. 2016. Belief, Evidence, and Uncertainty: Problems of Epistemic Inference. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Carrier, M. 2003. “Smooth Lines in Confirmation Theory: Carnap, Hempel, and the Moderns.” In Logical Empiricism: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Paolo Parrini, Wesley C. Salmon, and Merrilee H. Salmon, 304–324. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. 2010. ““The Ravens Paradox” is a Misnomer.” Synthese 175: 427–440. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9560-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Y. 1987. “Ravens and Relevance.” Erkenntnis 26: 153–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00192194
   Google Scholar
• Earman, J., and C. Glymour. 1988. “What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need? A Reply.” Philosophy of Science 55: 260–264. doi: 10.1086/289431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitelson, B., and J. Hawthorne. 2010. “How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Ravens Paradox.” In The Place of Probability in Science, edited by Ellery Eells and James Fetzer, 247–275. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, J. 2001. “Resurrecting Logical Probability.” Erkenntnis 55 (2): 277–305. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012918016159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glymour, C. 1980. Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glymour, C. 1983. “Revisions of Bootstrap Testing.” Philosophy of Science 50: 626–629. doi: 10.1086/289143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good, I. J. 1960. “The Paradox of Confirmation.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11: 145–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. 1954. Fact, Fiction & Forecast. London: University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Grandy, R. E. 1967. “Some Comments on Confirmation and Selective Confirmation.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 18: 19–24. doi: 10.1007/BF00378630
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. 1943. “A Purely Syntactical Definition of Confirmation.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 8: 122–143. doi: 10.2307/2271053
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. 1945. “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation (I).” Mind; A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 54: 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. 1958. “Empirical Statements and Falsifiability.” Philosophy (London, England) 33: 342–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosiasson-Lindenbaum, J. 1940. “On Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 133–148. doi: 10.2307/2268173
   Google Scholar
• Kirkham, R. L. 1992. Theories of Truth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L., and J. Leplin. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.” The Journal of Philosophy 88: 449–472. doi: 10.2307/2026601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher, Patrick. 2004. “Probability Captures the Logic of Scientific Confirmation.” In Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, edited by Christopher Hitchcock, 69–93. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, T. 1968. Permanent Income, Wealth, and Consumption: A Critique of the Permanent Income Theory, the Life-cycle Hypothesis, and Related Theories. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: California University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayo, Deborah. 2018. Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Okasha, S. 1997. “Laudan and Leplin on Empirical Equivalence.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48: 251–256. doi: 10.1093/bjps/48.2.251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. 1970. “Natural Kinds.” In Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, edited by Nicholas Rescher, 1–23. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Scheffler, I. 1963. The Anatomy of Inquiry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Schramm, A. 2014. “Evidence, Hypothesis, and Grue.” Erkenntnis 79: 571–591. doi: 10.1007/s10670-013-9524-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprenger, J., and S. Hartmann. 2019. Bayesian Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stove, D. 1966. “Hempel’s Paradox.” Dialogue (Los Angeles, Calif 4: 444–455.
   Google Scholar
• Swinburne, R. G. 1971. “The Paradoxes of Confirmation: A Survey.” American Philosophical Quarterly 8: 318–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sylvan, R., and R. Nola. 1991. “Confirmation without Paradoxes.” In Advances in Scientific Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Paul Weingartner on the Occasion of the 60th Anniversary of His Birthday, edited by Gerhard Schurz and G. J. W. Dorn, 5–44. Amsterdam/Atlanta, Georgia: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, R. H. 1975. “Selective Confirmation and the Ravens.” Dialogue (Los Angeles, Calif 14: 3–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar