Graduate studies at Western
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (2):155-160 (1974)
|Abstract||Popper has proposed two rigorous definitions of verisimilitude, A logical and a probabilistic one. The aim of this note is to show that, For simple logical reasons, Both are totally inadequate. It is demonstrated that on the logical definition, One false theory can never have more verisimilitude than another. An example of two theories a and b is given such that a is patently closer to the truth than b, Yet on popper's probabilistic definition, A has strictly less verisimilitude than b|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ilkka Niiniluoto (1998). Verisimilitude: The Third Period. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):1-29.
Philippe Mongin (1990). A Note on Verisimilitude and Relativization to Problems. Erkenntnis 33 (3):391 - 396.
Ken Gemes (2007). Verisimilitude and Content. Synthese 154 (2):293 - 306.
Giangiacomo Gerla (2007). Point-Free Geometry and Verisimilitude of Theories. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (6):707 - 733.
John H. Harris (1974). Popper's Definitions of 'Verisimilitude'. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (2):160-166.
R. G. Swinburne (1971). Popper's Account of Acceptability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):167 – 176.
Joseph Agassi (1981). To Save Verisimilitude. Mind 90 (360):576-579.
Joseph Wayne Smith (1984). What is Wrong with Verisimilitude. Philosophy Research Archives 10:511-541.
Pavel Tichy (1974). On Popper's Definitions of Verisimilitude. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (2):155 - 160.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,819 of 739,739 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,739 )
How can I increase my downloads?