The Logic of Scientific Confirmation: Probability, Relevance, and Inductive Reasoning

Scientific confirmation is a complex process that goes beyond simply proving hypotheses true or false. While science never provides absolute proof, it does allow us to assess the strength of evidence and update our beliefs about different theories and hypotheses. But how exactly should we evaluate scientific evidence and measure the degree of confirmation it provides?

To explore these questions, we need to delve into the philosophical foundations of scientific reasoning and the nature of probability. There are several key concepts and frameworks to consider:

Probability and Confirmation

Probability plays a central role in how scientists assess evidence and update their beliefs. But there are different interpretations of what probability actually means:

• Frequentist probability views probability as the long-run frequency of events in repeated trials. This works well for things like coin flips, but is harder to apply to one-off hypotheses.

• Epistemic or Bayesian probability treats probability as a degree of belief that can be updated based on evidence. This allows probabilities to be assigned to unique events or hypotheses.

• Objective probability posits that there are real, mind-independent probabilities inherent in physical systems and theories.

When it comes to scientific confirmation, we need to consider both the probability of hypotheses given evidence, as well as how relevant or confirmatory that evidence is. This leads to a two-dimensional view of confirmation:

1. The probability of the hypothesis given the evidence (posterior probability)
2. The degree to which the evidence confirms or disconfirms the hypothesis (relevance/confirmation)

Importantly, these two dimensions can sometimes pull in different directions. Evidence may strongly confirm a hypothesis while still leaving its overall probability relatively low, or vice versa.

Inductive Logic and Confirmation

Traditionally, philosophers have sought to develop systems of inductive logic to formalize scientific reasoning and confirmation. Key figures in this effort include:

• David Hume, who famously argued that inductive reasoning could not be justified deductively, leading to skepticism about induction.

• John Stuart Mill, who developed methods for inductive reasoning like the method of agreement and method of difference.

• Rudolf Carnap, who attempted to develop a formal system of inductive logic based on probability.

• Karl Popper, who rejected inductive confirmation in favor of falsification as the hallmark of science.

More recent work has focused on developing quantitative measures of confirmation and relevance. This allows for more precise analysis of how evidence impacts hypotheses.

Measures of Confirmation

There are various proposed measures for quantifying the degree of confirmation evidence provides for a hypothesis. Some key ones include:

• The difference between posterior and prior probability
• The ratio of posterior to prior odds (Bayes factor)

Importantly, different measures can sometimes disagree on the relative degree of confirmation in different scenarios. This has led some philosophers to argue for a two-dimensional approach that considers both probability and relevance/confirmation as separate factors.

The Base Rate Fallacy and Conjunction Fallacy

Two famous cognitive biases illustrate some of the pitfalls in reasoning about probability and confirmation:

The Base Rate Fallacy

This occurs when people ignore base rates (prior probabilities) when assessing the probability of a hypothesis given evidence. For example, if a medical test for a rare disease is 99% accurate, people often conclude a positive test result means there's a 99% chance of having the disease. But this ignores the very low base rate of the disease in the population.

The fallacy illustrates how relevance/confirmation (the test accuracy) can diverge from overall probability (which depends on the base rate).

The Conjunction Fallacy

In this fallacy, people judge a specific scenario as more probable than a more general one that logically includes it. The classic example involves judging "Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement" as more likely than "Linda is a bank teller", given a description that fits the feminist stereotype.

This may arise from conflating probability with representativeness or confirmatory power. The more specific scenario is more strongly confirmed by the evidence, even though it must be less probable overall.

The Wason Selection Task

This famous psychology experiment further illustrates how people reason about confirmation:

Participants are shown 4 cards, each with a letter on one side and a number on the other. They see the exposed faces:

D, K, 3, 7

They are then asked which cards must be flipped to test the rule: "If a card has D on one side, it has 3 on the other side."

The logically correct answer is to flip D and 7. D must be checked to confirm it has a 3. And 7 must be checked as a potential counterexample (if it had D on the other side, it would violate the rule).

However, many people choose D and 3, showing a bias toward confirmation rather than seeking potential falsification. This relates to Popper's emphasis on falsification in science.

Implications for Scientific Reasoning

These philosophical and psychological insights have important implications for how we think about scientific confirmation:

1. We need to consider both the probability of hypotheses and the relevance/confirmatory power of evidence. These can sometimes diverge.

2. Base rates and prior probabilities matter - we can't just focus on how well evidence fits a hypothesis.

3. There's value in seeking both confirmation and potential falsification of hypotheses.

4. Careful probabilistic reasoning is needed to properly assess the impact of evidence, avoiding common fallacies.

5. Different scientific fields may face different challenges in generating strongly confirmatory evidence.

6. Being explicit about prior probabilities could improve scientific discourse, though this is rare in many fields.

7. Even if we can't achieve certainty, we can still make progress by updating our beliefs based on evidence in a rational way.

Ultimately, while science may never prove theories with absolute certainty, a nuanced understanding of confirmation, probability, and relevance allows us to assess evidence and update our scientific beliefs in a principled way. This philosophical foundation is crucial for the ongoing refinement of scientific knowledge.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG57WvAWzUM