David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):99--114 (1991)
To recapitulate, then, for Reichenbach probability is the foundation of both metaphysics and epistemology. Metaphysically, probability is fundamental because it is the probability relations among the sequences of events in the world that gives rise to causality, time, and space. Epistemologically, probability is fundamental because empirical knowledge is simply knowledge of probabilities. Even knowledge of observation sentences is considered to be probabilistic knowledge by Reichenbach (EP, pp. 183–188), because Reichenbach's fallibilism leads him to hold that no observation sentence is absolutely incorrigible, and with the advance of scientific knowledge we need to inquire into the probability that our singular observation judgments may be in error.My aim here has not been to argue that Reichenbach succeeded in his magnificent attempt any more than Carnap succeeded in his. But I hope to have convinced you that is was one of the most magnificent attempts by any empiricist philosopher of this or of any other century, and I believe that the effort to understand it and to master its details will as richly repay us as the much greater effort which has been devoted to the study of Carnap's work has already repayed us
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Murat Baç (2003). The Ontological Status of Truthmakers: An Alternative to Tractarianism and Metaphysical Anti-Realism. Metaphysica 4 (2):5-28.
Bas C. van Fraassen (1997). Putnam's Paradox: Metaphysical Realism Revamped and Evaded. Philosophical Perspectives 11 (s11):17-42.
Ausonio Marras (2001). On Putnam's Critique of Metaphysical Realism: Mind-Body Identity and Supervenience. Synthese 126 (3):407-426.
Dermot Moran (2000). Hilary Putnam and Immanuel Kant: Two `Internal Realists'? Synthese 123 (1):65-104.
Bob Hale (2004). Putnam's Retreat: Some Reflections on Hilary Putnam's Changing Views About Metaphysical Necessity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 28 (1):351–378.
Louise Cummings (2001). Self-Refutations and Much More: The Dialectical Thinking of Hilary Putnam. Theoria 16 (2):237-268.
Yiftach J. H. Fehige (2010). The Negation of Nonsense is Nonsense: Hilary Putnam on Science and Religion. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematicsche Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 52 (4):350-376.
Jürgen Dümont (1999). Putnam's Model-Theoretic Argument(S). A Detailed Reconstruction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 30 (2):341-364.
Damian Cox (2003). Goodman and Putnam on the Making of Worlds. Erkenntnis 58 (1):33 - 46.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads32 ( #119,386 of 1,790,397 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,116 of 1,790,397 )
How can I increase my downloads?