Erkenntnis 60 (2):229-234 (2004)
|Abstract||Since Christensen refuted the Bootstrap theory of confirmation in 1990, there have been some trials to improve the Hypothetico-Deductive theory of confirmation. After some trials, Gemes (1998) declared that his revised version completely overcame the difficulties of Hypothetico-Deductivism without generating any new difficulties. In this paper, I will assert that Gemes's revised version encounters some new difficulties, so it cannot be a true alternative to the Bootstrap theory of confirmation and to classical Hypothetico-Deductivism. Also I will assert that, in principle, such new difficulties cannot be overcome by any trials dependent only on formal logic.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gerhard Schurz (1994). Relevant Deduction and Hypothetico-Deductivism: A Reply to Gemes. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 41 (2):183 - 188.
C. Kenneth Waters (1987). Relevance Logic Brings Hope to Hypothetico-Deductivism. Philosophy of Science 54 (3):453-464.
Ken Gemes (1993). Hypothetico-Deductivism, Content, and the Natural Axiomatization of Theories. Philosophy of Science 60 (3):477-487.
Ken Gemes (1990). Horwich, Hempel, and Hypothetico-Deductivism. Philosophy of Science 57 (4):699-702.
David Christensen (1983). Glymour on Evidential Relevance. Philosophy of Science 50 (3):471-481.
Luca Moretti (2006). The Tacking by Disjunction Paradox: Bayesianism Versus Hypothetico-Deductivism. Erkenntnis 64 (1):115-138.
Clark Glymour (1980). Hypothetico-Deductivism is Hopeless. Philosophy of Science 47 (2):322-325.
Ken Gemes (1994). Schurz on Hypothetico-Deductivism. Erkenntnis 41 (2):171 - 181.
Ken Gemes (2005). Hypothetico-Deductivism: Incomplete but Not Hopeless. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 63 (1):139 - 147.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,679 of 722,774 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,774 )
How can I increase my downloads?