Cited by 37Philosophy of Biology and Scientific ExplanationLogic and Philosophy of ScienceEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prediction and accommodation revisited

Worrall, John·2014·Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Abstract

The paper presents a further articulation and defence of the view on prediction and accommodation that I have proposed earlier. It operates by analysing two accounts of the issue--by Patrick Maher and by Marc Lange--that, at least at first sight, appear to be rivals to my own. Maher claims that the time-order of theory and evidence may be important in terms of degree of confirmation, while that claim is explicitly denied in my account. I argue, however, that when his account is analysed, Maher reveals no scientifically significant way in which the time-order counts, and that indeed his view is in the end best regarded as a less than optimally formulated version of my own. Lange has also responded to Maher by arguing that the apparent relevance of temporal considerations is merely apparent: what is really involved, according to Lange, is whether or not a hypothesis constitutes an "arbitrary conjunction." I argue that Lange's suggestion fails: the correct analysis of his and Maher's examples is that provided by my account.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.10.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • From an epistemic perspective, prediction can occur either before or after specific researchers become subjectively aware of their test results.

    “Importantly, from this epistemic perspective, prediction can occur either before or after specific researchers become subjectively aware of their test results (Rubin, 2019a; Worrall, 2014).”

    From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Worrall, 2014

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Howson, 1991, Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism, Philosophy of Science, 58, 574, 10.1086/289641 · DOI
  2. Lange, 2001, The apparent superiority of prediction to accommodation as a side effect: A reply to Maher, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 575, 10.1093/bjps/52.3.575 · DOI
  3. Maher, 1993, Howson and Franklin on prediction, Philosophy of Science, 60, 329, 10.1086/289736 · DOI
  4. Scerri, 2001, Prediction and the Periodic Table, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 32, 407, 10.1016/S0039-3681(01)00023-1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings?

    Rubin, M. (2020) · The Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.4.p376 · Cited by 61

    “about the time at which hypotheses are deduced from objectively a priori theory and evidence does not affect the credibility of hypothesis tests (Lewandowsky, 2019; Mayo, 2015, p. 61; Oberauer & Lewandowsky, 2019; Rubin, 2017c, 2019a; Vancouver, 2018; Worrall, 2014).”
    BackgroundMethodInfluential

Metadata

Authors
Worrall, J.
Affiliations
London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Corresponding author
Worrall, John
Venue
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
45
Pages
54-61
ISSN
0039-3681 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033033689
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
prediction, accommodation, confirmation, degree of confirmation
MeSH terms
Forecasting, Research Design, Science, Empirical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review