The Reverend and the Ravens: Comment on Seawright
- 1 January 2002
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Political Analysis
- Vol. 10 (2) , 194-197
- https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.194
Abstract
The purpose of this Comment is to put the current debate regarding testing necessary conditions into perspective and to point out a particularly troubling aspect of the “all cases” research design (Seawright 2002).Prior to the recent spate of books and articles in the social sciences (Ragin 1987; Dion 1988; Braumoeller and Goertz 2000), the debate over the testing or the confirmation of necessary conditions took place in the philosophical literature, mainly in terms of Hempel's (1945) paradox of the ravens. In what follows, I briefly review Hempel's paradox and the Bayesian solution to it. I argue that Seawright's account, while Bayesian in nature, relies on an assumption that no Bayesian would be willing to make.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Testing for Necessary and/or Sufficient Causation: Which Cases Are Relevant?Political Analysis, 2002
- The Methodology of Necessary ConditionsAmerican Journal of Political Science, 2000
- Evidence and Inference in the Comparative Case StudyComparative Politics, 1998
- A Green Parrot is Just as Much a Red Herring as a White Shoe: A Note on Confirmation, Background Knowledge and the Logico-Probabilistic ApproachThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1988
- The Context of Prediction (and the Paradox of Confirmation)The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1985
- THE PARADOX OF CONFIRMATIONThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1963
- I.—STUDIES IN THE LOGIC OF CONFIRMATION (II.)Mind, 1945