Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evidence for a hypothesis typically confirms the hypothesis more if the evidence was predicted than if it was accommodated. Or so I argued in previous papers, where I also developed an analysis of why this should be so. But this was all a mistake if Howson and Franklin (1991) are to be believed. In this paper, I show why they are not to be believed. I also identify a grain of truth that may have been dimly grasped by those Bayesians who deny the confirmatory value of prediction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patrick Maher (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: