IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v10y2002i02p194-197_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Reverend and the Ravens: Comment on Seawright

Author

Listed:
  • Clarke, Kevin A.

Abstract

The purpose of this Comment is to put the current debate regarding testing necessary conditions into perspective and to point out a particularly troubling aspect of the “all cases†research design (Seawright 2002). Prior to the recent spate of books and articles in the social sciences (Ragin 1987; Dion 1988; Braumoeller and Goertz 2000), the debate over the testing or the confirmation of necessary conditions took place in the philosophical literature, mainly in terms of Hempel's (1945) paradox of the ravens. In what follows, I briefly review Hempel's paradox and the Bayesian solution to it. I argue that Seawright's account, while Bayesian in nature, relies on an assumption that no Bayesian would be willing to make.

Suggested Citation

  • Clarke, Kevin A., 2002. "The Reverend and the Ravens: Comment on Seawright," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 194-197, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:10:y:2002:i:02:p:194-197_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700009967/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. De Souter Luna, 2024. "Evaluating Boolean relationships in Configurational Comparative Methods," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    2. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:polals:v:10:y:2002:i:02:p:194-197_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.