British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (1):105-109 (1991)
|Abstract||Karl Popper equates simplicity with falsifiability. He develops his argument for this equation through a geometrical example. There is a flaw in his example, which undermines his claim that simplicity is falsifiability. I point out the flaw here.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Corfield, Bernhard Schölkopf & Vladimir Vapnik (2009). Falsificationism and Statistical Learning Theory: Comparing the Popper and Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimensions. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40 (1):51 - 58.
K. K. Lee (1969). Popper's Falsifiability and Darwin's Natural Selection. Philosophy 44 (170):291-.
R. G. Swinburne (1971). Popper's Account of Acceptability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):167 – 176.
R. A. Sharpe (1964). The Logical Status of Natural Laws. Inquiry 7 (1-4):414-416.
David N. Stamos (2007). Popper, Laws, and the Exclusion of Biology From Genuine Science. Acta Biotheoretica 55 (4).
Nicholas Maxwell (1979). Induction, Simplicity and Scientific Progress. Scientia 114:629-653.
Ingvar Johansson (1980). Ceteris Paribus Clauses, Closure Clauses and Falsifiability. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 11 (1):16-22.
David N. Stamos (1996). Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):161-191.
Yasuyuki Kageyama (2003). Openness to the Unknown: The Role of Falsifiability in Search of Better Knowledge. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 33 (1):100-121.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #49,501 of 548,969 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )
How can I increase my downloads?