from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
- abbr. east
- abbr. eastern
- abbr. energy
- abbr. Baseball error
- abbr. excellent
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. Everyone.
- n. East.
- n. The illicit drug ecstasy (MDMA).
- n. The grade below D in some grading systems. In most such systems, it is a failing grade.
- n. The fifth letter of the basic modern Latin alphabet.
- n. Representing × 10x in floating-point notation.
- n. Hexadecimal symbol for 14.
- n. Energy.
- n. IUPAC 1-letter abbreviation for glutamic acid
- n. expectation function
- n. The fifth letter of the English alphabet, called e and written in the Latin script.
- n. The ordinal number fifth, derived from this letter of the English alphabet, called e and written in the Latin script.
On this view, a particular experience E that is a veridical perception of a particular mind-independent object O will have an intentional content with a demonstrative element that successfully refers to O, and a distinct particular experience E* will have an intentional content with the same veridicality conditions only if its intentional content contains a demonstrative element that also refers to O.
E and its negation ~E (assumed to be the locus of all the non-inferential changes in probability) from initial probabilities between zero and one to
A corollary is that, where H entails E, ~E would disconfirm H, by reducing its probability to zero.
While a proponent of theistic pragmatic arguments cannot swear allegiance to (E), she can, clearly enough, adhere to (E²).
H receives a greater increment (or lesser decrement) of evidential support from E than from E* if and only if PE (H) exceeds
E and E* provide for H is the amount by which the incremental evidence that E provides for H exceeds the incremental evidence that E* provides for
If H entails both E and E*, say, then Bayes 'Theorem entails that the least probable of the two supports H more strongly.
H predicts E more strongly than H* does, and (b) ~H predicts ~E more strongly than
The effective increment of evidence  that E provides for H is the amount by which the incremental evidence that E provides for H exceeds the incremental evidence that ~E provides for H.
E provides more incremental evidence than E* does for H