There is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science.
Earman introduces and clarifies the historical and philosophical development of the clash between Newton's absolute conception of space and Leibniz's relative one. He separates the issues and provides new perspectives on absolute versus rational accounts of motion and substantive versus rational accounts of the ontology of spacetime, revitalizing the connection of the debate to contemporary science.
John Earman is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.