Peter Achinstein: Evidence, Explanation, and Realism: Essays in Philosophy of Science

Igor Douven · Science & Education · 2011 · philosophy-of-science · 10.1007/s11191-011-9405-9 · record douven2011-peter-achinstein-evidence-explanat
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Book review, not a primary study, so 'method: review' is the closest field-neutral fit; the reviewer's own argumentative move (proposing a rival probabilistic definition and rejecting Achinstein's counterexample) is what makes claim type critique rather than a neutral summary. limitations is EMPTY on purpose: the piece states limits of the reviewed BOOK (e.g. that a fuller introduction would have helped), never limits of the review itself, and rule 6 restricts the facet to the paper's own limits. Only one claim_relation is recorded, to Achinstein, because the other names in the text (Carnap, Perrin, the Bayesians) are discussed as content of the book rather than as work the review positions itself against. 2026-08-14 schema-0.3 pass: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

The quality of the text these quotes were cut from. corrupt-text-layer (SECOND COPY ONLY): the web page we fetched has lost its inter-word spaces - space ratio 0.063 against 0.157 in an internal file, which is intact and is the copy every anchor resolves against. THE DAMAGE IS IN THE PUBLISHING ARTEFACT, NOT IN THE GROUNDING TEXT; a quality note that did not say so would accuse the wrong file. All 33 live quotes are cut from the grounding copy and are unaffected.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
evidence 2 fields · scientific realism 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

evidence potential evidence veridical evidence explanatory connection theoretical virtues Explanatory adequacy is context-dependent because what it takes to make something understandable varies with the audience's interests and background knowledge, so the same act explains for one hearer and not another purely probabilistic definition explanation scientific realism underdetermination review

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9405-9. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 5 · content_tags 16 · limitations 3 · mechanisms 1 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	philosophical accounts of evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Explanatory adequacy is context-dependent because what it takes to make something understandable varies with the audience's interests and background knowledge, so the same act explains for one hearer and not another	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Usage data does not settle which analysis of a concept is right, so the choice between rival definitions has to be made on other grounds. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: an argument that settles a definition by appeal to how the word is ordinarily used: linguistic intuitions rarely point to precisely one analysis, and arbitration between explications has to rest on something other than language-use data	`limitations[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The counterexample that motivates the alternative definition only bites under one of the word's two ordinary uses, and dissolves under the other. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the lottery counterexample against the Bayesian account: it turns on the CATEGORICAL use of 'evidence', and under the graded use the same information is evidence for John's winning to an exceedingly low degree and for Mary's to a very high one	`limitations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The book reprints a theory the reviewer says is no longer influential, without answering the criticisms that made it so. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the explanation essays in this collection: the reviewer states the theory is no longer influential because of criticisms levelled against it, and that the volume reprints the essays without indicating why the author believes it still stands	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concepts	evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: evidence	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	potential evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: potential evidence	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	veridical evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: veridical evidence	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	explanatory connection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explanatory connection	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	theoretical virtues Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theoretical virtues	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
senses	evidence - BAYESIAN: E is evidence for H exactly when H becomes more probable given E; purely formal, and the account the rest of the argument is aimed at Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	evidence - ACHINSTEIN'S, SPLIT IN TWO: the hypothesis must be probable given the evidence, not merely more probable, AND there must be an explanatory connection - probable for POTENTIAL evidence, actually existing for VERIDICAL evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	evidence - THE REVIEWER'S PURELY PROBABILISTIC DEFINITION: probable given E and more probable than unconditionally, which he argues covers every case the explanatory clause was added for Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	evidence - CATEGORICAL vs GRADED: the same word is used both for a yes-or-no relation and for a matter of degree, and which one is meant decides whether the lottery case is a problem at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Peter Achinstein's definition of potential and veridical evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	potential evidence —is-a→ evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: potential evidence · evidence	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	veridical evidence —is-a→ evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: veridical evidence · evidence	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	potential evidence —distinct-from→ veridical evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: potential evidence · veridical evidence	`concept_edges[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM) · Achinstein's lottery case: John holds one ticket in a fair 100-ticket lottery and Mary holds the other 99. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED - THE POINTER WAS WRONG, NOT THE CLAIM. The old evidence was verbatim, anchored and correctly cut, and it contained NONE of this claim's numbers (100, 99). The paper states the claim in one sentence elsewhere and the tagger did not use it. the project, 2026-08-23: 'WE HAVE SPENT THE DAY VERIFYING THAT QUOTES ARE REAL AND NONE OF IT ASKS WHETHER THEY ARE RELEVANT.' Confirmed by reading the claim, the old span and the candidate together; the candidate carries every number AND the claim's own content words.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Achinstein's own account replaces probability-raising with a high-probability requirement: the hypothesis must be probable given the putative evidence, not merely more probable than before. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Achinstein additionally requires an explanatory connection between evidence and hypothesis, which need only be probable for potential evidence but must actually obtain for veridical evidence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Douven's purely probabilistic definition solves the lottery problem and also handles Jim's pill-and-pregnancy case. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Douven allows that the information is not evidence but still a good reason to believe the symptoms will be relieved, which may fuel the intuition that it is evidence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Achinstein argues that Bayesian and rival philosophical accounts of evidence are too weak to be used in science and wrongly treat evidential status as knowable a priori, whereas two historical case studies show it can be an empirical matter. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Because Achinstein makes the act of explaining central, whether someone explained something depends on that person's intention, so uttering words that in fact produce understanding without the intention to do so is not explaining. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Achinstein's work on explanation is no longer influential, largely because of criticisms leveled against it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Antirealists who hold out against Perrin's findings come to resemble the skeptic about the external world in general. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	purely probabilistic definition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: purely probabilistic definition	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	explanation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explanation	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	scientific realism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific realism	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	underdetermination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: underdetermination	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	theoretical virtues Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theoretical virtues	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	potential evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: potential evidence	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	veridical evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: veridical evidence	`content_tags.definitions[8]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.