“Why Philosophical Theories of Evidence Are (and Ought to Be) Ignored by Scientists” is reprinted by permission from Philosophy of Science Association Symposium Proceedings (PSA 98, published 2000), 180-

192.

I argue that the answer to the title question is that such theories propose concepts of evidence that (a) are too weak to give scientists what they want from evidence and (b) make the evi­dential relationship a priori, whereas typically establishing whether e if true is evidence that h requires an empirical investigation.

1.

More on the topic “Why Philosophical Theories of Evidence Are (and Ought to Be) Ignored by Scientists” is reprinted by permission from Philosophy of Science Association Symposium Proceedings (PSA 98, published 2000), 180-: