Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-23T00:53:06.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Defense of the Requirement of Total Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Paul Draper
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the Requirement of Total Evidence, when assessing the credibility of hypotheses, we should endeavor to take into account all of the relevant evidence at our disposal instead of just some proper part of that evidence. In “The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Requirement of Total Evidence,” Peter Fisher Epstein offers two alleged counterexamples to this requirement. I show that, on at least one very natural interpretation of the requirement, his alleged counterexamples are not genuine. I close by explaining why this conclusion is important.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 179 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Kaila Draper, Joel Pust, and an anonymous referee for their very helpful comments.

References

Draper, Kai, Draper, Paul, and Pust, Joel. 2007. “Probabilistic Arguments for Multiple Universes.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88:288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Peter Fisher. 2017. “The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Requirement of Total Evidence.” Philosophy of Science 84 (4): 639–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhl, Cory. 2005. “Fine-Tuning, Many Worlds, and the ‘Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy.’” Noûs 39:337–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, Kent W. 2002. “What Experiment Did We Just Do? Counterfactual Error Statistics and Uncertainties about the Reference Class.” Philosophy of Science 69:279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, Kent W. 2004. The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, Roger. 2000. “Fine-Tuning and Multiple Universes.” Noûs 34:260–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar