Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:34:16.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confirmation and Prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

G. H. Merrill
G. H. Merrill*
Affiliation:
Loyola University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is argued that Hempel's original rejection of the prediction criterion of confirmation in [8] (on the grounds that it leads to a circular definition of confirmation) was ill-conceived, and that his own approach exhibits undesirable consequences to the degree that it deviates from this criterion. A version of the prediction criterion is formulated which, in addition to being-non circular, escapes the criticisms advanced against Hempel's satisfaction criterion, offers certain clear advantages over alternative approaches, and may serve as the basis for a theory of qualitative confirmation. The definition of confirmation developed here violates two of Hempel's three criteria of adequacy, and in showing why it should do so some light is shed on various issues in the debate concerning the acceptability of these criteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 98 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Brody, B. A. “Confirmation and Explanation” Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968): 282–99.10.2307/2024079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Brody, B. A., ed. Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.Google Scholar
[3] Canfield, J. “On the Paradoxes of Confirmation” Metrika 5 (1962). 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Carnap, R. The Logical Foundations of Probability Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.Google Scholar
[5] Goble, A. T. and Baker, D. K. Elements of Modern Physics. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1962.Google Scholar
[6] Hempel, Carl. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
[7] Hempel, Carl. “A Purely Syntactical Definition of Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 8 (1943): 122–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Hempel, Carl “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation.” Mind 54 (1945): 1–26, 97–121. Reprinted in Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press, 1965. 3–52. Page references are to this latter source.Google Scholar
[9] Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.Google Scholar
[10] Scheffler, I. The Anatomy of Inquiry, New York: Knopf, 1963.Google Scholar
[11] Sellars, W. “The Language of Theories.” In Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
[12] Skyrms, B. “Nomological Necessity and the Paradoxes of Confirmation.” Philosophy of Science 34 (1966): 230–49.Google Scholar
[13] Suppes, P. Introduction to Logic. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1957.Google Scholar
[14] Watkins, J. W. N. “Confirmation, the Paradoxes, and Positivism.” In The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, edited by Bunge, M. New York: The Free Press, 1964. pp. 92–115.Google Scholar