Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 45 (2):289-302 (1978)
|Abstract||The Relevance Criterion of confirmation gained prominence as the underlying principle of the class-size approach (CSA) to Hempel's paradoxes of confirmation. The CSA, however, yields counter-intuitive results for (c) instances, and this failing cast serious doubt on the acceptability of the Relevance Criterion. In this paper an attempt is made to rescue the Relevance Criterion from this embarrassment. This is done by incorporating that criterion into a new resolution of the paradoxes, a resolution based on a theory of selective confirmation and a distinction between mere confirmation in principle and evaluative confirmation (E-confirmation)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
R. G. Swinburne (1970). Choosing Between Confirmation Theories. Philosophy of Science 37 (4):602-613.
R. G. Swinburne (1971). The Paradoxes of Confirmation - a Survey. American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (4):318 - 330.
Branden Fitelson (1999). The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):378.
Patrick Maher (1996). Subjective and Objective Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 63 (2):149-174.
Xinguo Dun (2007). Queries on Hempel's Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (1):131-139.
J. L. Mackie (1969). The Relevance Criterion of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):27-40.
Branden Fitelson (2006). The Paradox of Confirmation. Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
John Forge (1984). Theoretical Functions, Theory and Evidence. Philosophy of Science 51 (3):443-463.
G. H. Merrill (1979). Confirmation and Prediction. Philosophy of Science 46 (1):98-117.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,563 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?