Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Does the No Alternatives Argument need Gerrymandering to Be Significant?
Stockholm University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1472-2958
2021 (English)In: British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, ISSN 0007-0882, E-ISSN 1464-3537Article in journal (Refereed) Accepted
Abstract [en]

In a recent article, Menon has argued that the no alternatives argument can only be significantif the priors for numbers of alternatives are tuned in an implausible way (gerrymandered, as he calls it). In this article, I demonstrate that priors needed for making a no alternatives argument significant are in line with what can be plausibly assumed in a successful research field.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2021.
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-196894DOI: 10.1086/717081OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-196894DiVA, id: diva2:1594947
Available from: 2021-09-16 Created: 2021-09-16 Last updated: 2023-11-27

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Dawid, Richard

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dawid, Richard
By organisation
Department of Philosophy
In the same journal
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 35 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf