# General Philosophy of Science

 Most recently started first Most recently active first Order Search forums Subscribe to this forum feed for this page

1 - 20 / 41
 2016-10-18 Chenguang Luindependent researcher I agree with you to use similarity or distance to define Truthlikeness function.Yet I use some different method.For exampe, a hypothesis hj="His age is about 20 years old".We can use T(hj|E)=exp[-(E-20)2/8] as truth function or  Truthlikeness function..If we wish that  Truthlikeness can tell precision and give tautology lower Truthlikeness,  we may use T(hj|E)/T(hj)  or I=log[T(hj|E)/T(hj)] as Truthlikeness, where T(hj)=sum i P(ei)T(hj|ei) is the average of T(hj|E), and may be call logical probability of hj.For more details, see my paper: Semantic Information Measure with Two Types of Probability for Falsification and Confirmation Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/22030 Reply

 2016-10-05 Chenguang Luindependent researcher Some words in my paper:T(hj|ei)--fuzzy truth function of a predicate hj.T(hj)--logical probability or  average thue-value of a predicate hj.Popper defined Testing severity and Verisimilitude (1963/2005, 526, 534). Since Logical Probability and Statistical Probability are not well distinguished by him, his definitions are not satisfactory. The author suggests defining log [1/T(hj)] as testing severity, and T(hj|ei)/T(hj) as verisimilitude. In terms of Likelihood method, P(ei| hi is true)/P(ei) =T(hj|ei)/T(hj) is also called standard likelihood. So, we may say Semantic information = log (Standard likelihood) = log (Verisimilitude)=Testing severity - Relative deviation If negative verisimilitude for lies or wrong predictions is expected, one may also define verisimilitude by log [T(hj|ei)/T(hj)].  The figure 8 in the paper shows how positive and negative degrees of believe affect thruthlikeness.  Latest replies: Chenguang Lu, 2016-10-07 : Logical probability T(hj)=sum i P(xi)T(hj|ei).1/ T(hj) indicates  Fallibi lity Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/21538 Reply

 2015-10-05 Albert HallidayGlasgow University I have written a short paper on an issue that I have not come across before. In it I attempt to argue that light waves are an opaque barrier between the eye of the observer and the objective world. And, that light waves prevent direct knowledge of objects in the world. I would be grateful for criticism and responses. Bert Latest replies: Justin Gregory le Saux, 2016-01-29 : Your term 'opaque barrier' suggests that you think light waves absolutely prevent perceptual access to 'thin... (read more)Albert Halliday, 2016-02-01 : Justin, thanks for your response. The issue that I raise concerns the human eye - not a camera. Although a camera is oft... (read more) Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/10568 Reply

 2015-04-18 Benjamin BagleyNorth Carolina State University If you come across this paper while researching philosophy of love, you should watch this: https://youtu.be/ykxNI137sPk Latest replies: Hedstrom Smith, 2015-07-28 : Thanks for recommendation, it was worth it. Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9876 Reply

 2015-02-19 Kristin M. MickelsonUniversity of Minnesota, Morris If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread! Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9649 Reply

 2015-01-21 Petar PajevićUniversity of Kent at Canterbury This seems a simple mistake, and it should consequently be simple to rectify it. In particular, since the bulk of the translation was done by G.E.M. Anscombe in 1958, and the front page of the fourth edition states "The German text, with an English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte", Anscombe should be appropriately credited.  Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9515 Reply

 2014-11-19 Yusuke KanekoUniversity of Tokyo As I got the permission from the Society, now I upload the material. Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9388 Reply

 2014-11-05 Yusuke KanekoUniversity of Tokyo Because of Copyright, I am not yet in a position to upload this article. If you have any interest, feel free to contact me anytime.  (Author) Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9323 Reply

 2014-02-10 Tm Malmanalytical research Philosophy of TimeThe nature of time has had extensive attention in part down through the ages, such as Plato, St. Augustine, Pascal, Leonardo, Newton etc. For example, Newton considered time to flow uniformly, as if it were a separate manifold (1-surface) from the 3-surface of his mechanics described universe. ‘Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external…’  Newton’s Principia For a 3-manifold, this would give a product space description M^3 x M^1, the simplest fiber bundle description. Hence such description would be universal; that is the same common time for throughout the universe. Subsequently, the relativistic model refers to time as the interval between events, wherein clocks are associated with respective observers. However an event such as the Big Bang, and concomitant Big Expansion of our manifold (i.e. 3-surface), does not have such a General Relativistic Theory description; nor is ‘initial’ 3-ex ... (read more) Latest replies: Daniel Clay Davis, 2014-06-25 : Interesting reflections, Tm. Not as many folks write about time as some of the other topics. Am I correct in saying you... (read more)Tm Malm, 2016-01-22 : Thus in such modeling, would one have two concomitant renditions of an overall common cosmic time; the Hubble Expansion... (read more)Andrew Wutke, 2016-11-28 : I think that seeking for a common time as a kind of extended object is like looking for a Philosophical Stone. If anythi... (read more) Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/8088 Reply

 2013-07-25 Andrew RussoUniversity of Central OklahomaUniversity of Oklahoma All comments are welcome! Latest replies: Jim Stone, 2013-08-08 : A note to say that I will get to this paper shortly. Thanks for  posting, JimAndrew Russo, 2013-08-09 : Thanks Jim.  You're very kind to look at the paper again.  Please feel no obligation.Jim Stone, 2013-08-09 : Some comments, very much tentative and for The writing in the first part is very good–simple, lucid, forceful. The paper... (read more)Andrew Russo, 2013-08-09 : These are great comments and quite helpful for focusing on getting the paper accepted by a journal.  Thanks again f... (read more)Jim Stone, 2013-08-09 : Thanks for letting me read it, Jim Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7858 Reply