British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (2):335-355 (1993)
|Abstract||Karl Popper defines an ad hoc hypothesis as one that is introduced to immunize a theory from some (or all) refutation but which cannot be tested independently. He has also attempted to explicate ad hocness in terms of certain other allegedly undesirable properties of hypotheses or of the explanations they would provide, but his account is confused and mistaken. The first such property is circularity, which is undesirable; the second such property is reduction in empirical content, which need not be. In the former case, I argue that non-circularity is in any event preferable to non-ad hocness as a necessary condition for a satisfactory explanation or an explanans, as the case may be, and I try to sort out various persistent errors surrounding this comparison. In the latter case, I suggest that Popper is barking up the wrong tree, that important scientific progress sometimes does consist in just such reductions in empirical content as he proscribes. This provides a further reason for not taking ad hoc hypotheses as Popper conceives them to pose the danger for science he believes they do|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
K. R. Popper (1959). Discussions: Testability and ‘ Ad-Hocness ’ of the Contraction Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):50-a-50.
Danny Frederick (2011). Deduction and Novelty. The Reasoner 5 (4):56-57.
E. Kurt Lienau & Rob DeSalle (forthcoming). Evidence, Content and Corroboration and the Tree of Life. Acta Biotheoretica.
David N. Stamos (2007). Popper, Laws, and the Exclusion of Biology From Genuine Science. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (4).
K. R. Popper (1959). Testability and 'Ad-Hocness' of the Contraction Hypothesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):50.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (forthcoming). Popper's Measure of Corroboration and P(H|B). British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Maurilio Lovatti (1996). Neopositivists' Crusade Against Karl Popper. Per la Filosofia (36):99-109.
Greg Bamford (1996). Popper and His Commentators on the Discovery of Neptune: A Close Shave for the Law of Gravitation? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):207-232.
Greg Bamford (1999). What is the Problem of Ad Hoc Hypotheses? Science and Education 8 (4):375 - 86..
Greg Bamford (1989). Popper, Refutation and 'Avoidance' of Refutation. Dissertation, The University of Queensland
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #106,301 of 549,075 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,075 )
How can I increase my downloads?