Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:36:05.030Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Shall we do With Verisimilitude?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ilkka Niiniluoto
Ilkka Niiniluoto*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Popper distinguishes the problems of theoretical and pragmatic preference between rival theories, but he claims that there is a common non-inductive solution to both of them, viz. the “best-tested theory”, or the theory with the highest degree of corroboration. He further suggests that the degrees of corroboration serve as indicators of verisimilitude. One may therefore raise the question whether the recent theory of verisimilitude gives a general non-inductive solution to the problem of theoretical preference. This paper argues that this is not the case: the theory of verisimilitude is applicable to this problem if and only if there is an independent solution to the problem of induction. Moreover, the solutions to the theoretical and pragmatic problems of preference coincide only in some special cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 181 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

†

The first version of this paper was read in a symposium on verisimilitude in the Conference on the Philosophy of Sir Karl Popper, London, July 14-16, 1980. I am grateful to fellow symposiasts, David Miller and Pavel Tichý, for stimulating discussions.

References

REFERENCES

Augustine, St. (1950), Against the Academics. Westminster: The Newman Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. S. (1967), Mathematical Statistics: A Decision Theoretic Approach. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1981), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H. (1957), Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1978), “The Distance Between Constituents”, Synthese 38: 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (1980), “Critical Notice on R. E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics“, Synthese 43: 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1977a), “On the Truthlikeness of Generalizations”, in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (eds.), Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, pp. 121–147. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1977b), “On a K-dimensional System of Inductive Logic”, in Suppe, F. and Asquith, P. D. (eds.), PSA 1976, vol. 2, pp. 425–447. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1978), “Truthlikeness: Comments on Recent Discussion”, Synthese 38: 281–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1979a), “Truthlikeness in First-Order Languages”, in Hintikka, J., Niiniluoto, I., and Saarinen, E. (eds.), Essays on Mathematical and Philosophical Logic, pp. 437–458. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1979b), “Verisimilitude, Theory-Change, and Scientific Progress”, in Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change (Acta Philosophica Fennica 30), pp. 243–264. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1979c), “Degrees of Truthlikeness: From Singular Sentences to Generalizations”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30: 371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1980), “Scientific Progress”, Synthese 45: 427–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1982), “On Explicating Verisimilitude: Reply to Oddie”, forthcoming in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (1973), Theoretical Concepts and Hypothetico-Inductive Inference. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G. (1979), “Verisimilitude and Distance in Logical Space”, in Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R. (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change (Acta Philosophica Fennica 30), pp. 227–242. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Oddie, G. (1981), “Verisimilitude Reviewed”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32: 237–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1972), Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2nd ed. 1980.)Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. (1980), “Measuring Truthlikeness”, Synthese 45: 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tichý, P. (1978), “Verisimilitude Revisited”, Synthese 38: 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. (1977), “Towards a Unified Decision Theory: A Non-Bayesian Approach”, in Butts, R. E. and Hintikka, J. (eds.), Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, pp. 345–379. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. (1978), “Corroboration and the Problem of Content-Comparison”, in Radnitzky, G. and Andersson, G. (eds.), Progress and Rationality in Science, pp. 339–378. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar