id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentences	flesch	summary	cache	txt
work_cdgwsops2nerncmuosgca7mprq	Olav B. Vassend	Confirmation Measures and Sensitivity	2015	18	.pdf	application/pdf	5367	537	76	conclude that the log-likelihood measure is the only good candidate interval Suppose our preferred confirmation measure, c, outputs the numbers c(H1,E) = 0.1, true measure of confirmation; the argument only shows that the log-likelihood is Pr(H), and Pr(E), it has become standard to assume that any confirmation measure can be expressed as a function of Pr(H|E), Pr(H), and Pr(E). Since I find the preceding argument convincing, I will assume that the confirmation measure we are looking for is of the following form: c(H,E) = f(Pr(H),Pr(H|E)). Any confirmation measure is of the following form: c(H,E) = Bayesian confirmation measures are defined in terms of credences, If Bayesian confirmation measures are necessarily affected by variable credences, I contend that we a small effect on confirmation: the most natural way to formalize this requirement to the following disjunction: either there is no interval confirmation measure or the only interval confirmation measure is l. log-ratio confirmation measure, lr.	./cache/work_cdgwsops2nerncmuosgca7mprq.pdf	./txt/work_cdgwsops2nerncmuosgca7mprq.txt