IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i12d10.1007_s11192-024-05197-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laudan versus Bayes: how often does Bayes agree with Laudan given multiple lines of evidence?

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Small

    (SciTech Strategies, Inc.)

Abstract

Larry Laudan advocated the evaluation of theories based on how many problems they solved minus the problems they failed to solve compared to their competitors. Laudan’s criterion has the advantage of being intuitive. In the Bayesian approach, the likelihood of a theory solving a problem presented by the evidence is expressed as the conditional probability of the evidence given the theory, P(E|T). For the case of multiple forms of evidence, we ask to what extent does Laudan’s criterion agree with the Bayesian solution? A random simulation of conditional probabilities shows that the rate of agreement is about 80%. Thus, the Laudan criterion approximates the Bayesian solution and also gives the latter the appearance of being intuitive. Modifications of the Laudan criterion are tested, such as setting a threshold on the differences between likelihoods or summing those differences across multiple forms of evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Small, 2024. "Laudan versus Bayes: how often does Bayes agree with Laudan given multiple lines of evidence?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7913-7922, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05197-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05197-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05197-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05197-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05197-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.