A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2008; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is application/pdf.
The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses: Reply to Fitelson and Waterman
2005
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
Preserved Fulltext
A Fitelson and Waterman (2004)'s principal objection to Strevens (2001)'s Bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses rests on a misinterpretation of Strevens's central claim about the negligibility of certain small probabilities. The present paper clarifies and proves a very general version of the claim.
doi:10.1093/bjps/axi133
fatcat:ytonkcb2yraz5cwkyjy47cawti