Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T19:00:25.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Likelihood Principle and a Supposed Antinomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Barry Loewer ,
Robert Laddaga  and
Roger Rosenkrantz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is natural to regard a given datum, x, as favoring that one of two rival hypotheses, H or K, which affords x higher probability, so that H is favored iff the likelihood ratio; P(x|H):P(x|K) exceeds one. More generally, the relative support x accords the different members of a partition of hypotheses, H1,…,Hn, is assessed by comparing their likelihoods, P(x|Hi). Considered as a function of the Hi, L(Hi) = P(x|Hi) is called the likelihood function. If we view the likelihood function associated with an observed experimental outcome, x, as conveying the entire evidential import of the experiment, then it follows that the two outcomes, x and y, whether of the same or different experiments, are evidentially equivalent just in case they give rise to the same relative likelihoods, P(x|Hi):P(x|Hi) = P(y|Hi):P(y|Hj) for all i,j, or , in other words, iff P(x|Hi) α P(y|Hi) for all i.

Type
Part VIII. Applications of Statistical Ideas
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 278 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by 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.)

References

Barnard, G. A., Jenkins, G. M., and Winsten, C. B. “Likelihood inference and time series.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 125(1962):321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. “The Neyman-Pearson theory as decision theory, and as inference theory; with a criticism of the Lindley-Savage argument for Bayesian theory.” Synthese 36(1977): 19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. “On the foundations of statistical inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 57(1962): 269–306 (with discussion).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, A. “Concepts of statistical evidence.” In Philosophy, Science and Method. Edited by Morgenbesser, S., Suppes, P., and White, M. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1969. Pages 112–143.Google Scholar
Cox, D.R. “Some problems connected with statistical inference.” Annals of Mathematcal Statistics 29(1958): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. Likelihood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Edwards, W., Lindman, H., and Savage, L.J. “Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research.” Psychological Review 70(1963): 193–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1956.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. The Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, D.V. “The distinction between inference and decision.” Synthese 36(1977): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, J.W. “‘Decisions’ as statistical evidence and Birnbaum's ‘confidence concept’.” Synthese 36(1977): 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar