Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 10, 2026

A Novel Bayesian Change-point Algorithm for Genome-wide Analysis of Diverse ChIPseq Data Types
Published on: December 10, 2012
The role of explanatory considerations in updating
Igor Douven1, Jonah N Schupbach2
1Sciences, Normes, Décision, Paris-Sorbonne University, France.
Abstract:
There is an ongoing controversy in philosophy about the connection between explanation and inference. According to Bayesians, explanatory considerations should be given weight in determining which inferences to make, if at all, only insofar as doing so is compatible with Strict Conditionalization. Explanationists, on the other hand, hold that explanatory considerations can be relevant to the question of how much confidence to invest in our hypotheses in ways which violate Strict Conditionalization. The controversy has focused on normative issues. This paper investigates experimentally the descriptive question of whether judgments of the explanatory goodness of hypotheses do play a role when people revise their degrees of belief in those hypotheses upon the receipt of new evidence. We present the results of three experiments that together strongly support the predictive superiority of the explanationist position.
Related Concept Videos
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I
Causality in Epidemiology

