Confirmation: What's in the evidence?
AbstractIn this paper, I discuss the difference between accommodated evidence (i.e. when evidence is known first and a hypothesis is the proposed to explain and fit the observations) and predicted evidence (i.e., when evidence verifies the prediction of a hypothesis formulated before observing the evidence) from a behavioral as well as a statistical perspective. Using a factorial survey on a sample of students, I show that predicted evidence is perceived to constitute stronger confirmation than accommodated evidence. This position deviates from the standard Bayesian epistemological theory of confirmation where accommodated and predicted evidence constitute equally strong confirmation. The findings suggests that trusting a model to predict correctly is intrinsically related to trust in the proposers' (i.e., the scientists') level of knowledge, and relatively more subjects are persuaded by a proposer's abilities if the proposer is successful in predicting rather than accommodating evidence. The existence of an indirect relationship between hypothesis and evidence can be considered to impose undesirable subjectivity and arbitrariness on questions of evidential support.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics in its series Jena Economic Research Papers with number 2013-025.
Date of creation: 11 Jun 2013
Date of revision:
Evidence; Prediction; Methodology;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
- C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
- C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-06-24 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Edward E. Leamer, 1982.
"Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics,"
UCLA Economics Working Papers
239, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999.
"A Theory Of Fairness, Competition, And Cooperation,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868, August.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, . "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," IEW - Working Papers 004, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Halbert White, 2000. "A Reality Check for Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1097-1126, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.