Popper's explications of ad hocness: Circularity, empirical content, and scientific practice

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (2):335-355 (1993)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Karl Popper defines an ad hoc hypothesis as one that is introduced to immunize a theory from some (or all) refutation but which cannot be tested independently. He has also attempted to explicate ad hocness in terms of certain other allegedly undesirable properties of hypotheses or of the explanations they would provide, but his account is confused and mistaken. The first such property is circularity, which is undesirable; the second such property is reduction in empirical content, which need not be. In the former case, I argue that non-circularity is in any event preferable to non-ad hocness as a necessary condition for a satisfactory explanation or an explanans, as the case may be, and I try to sort out various persistent errors surrounding this comparison. In the latter case, I suggest that Popper is barking up the wrong tree, that important scientific progress sometimes does consist in just such reductions in empirical content as he proscribes. This provides a further reason for not taking ad hoc hypotheses as Popper conceives them to pose the danger for science he believes they do

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Popper, Refutation and 'Avoidance' of Refutation.Greg Bamford - 1989 - Dissertation, The University of Queensland
What is the Problem of Ad Hoc Hypotheses?Greg Bamford - 1999 - Science & Education 8 (4):375 - 86..
A coherentist conception of ad hoc hypotheses.Samuel Schindler - 2018 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 67:54-64.
On Ad Hoc Hypotheses.J. Christopher Hunt - 2012 - Philosophy of Science 79 (1):1-14.
Popper and his commentators on the discovery of Neptune: A close shave for the law of gravitation?Greg Bamford - 1996 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):207-232.
Testability and 'ad-hocness' of the contraction hypothesis.K. R. Popper - 1959 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37):50.
Ad Hoc Philosophy of Science.Thomas Johansson - 2019 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 50 (2):297-306.
Ad Hoc Hypothesis Generation as Enthymeme Resolution.Woosuk Park - 2006 - In Lorenzo Magnani & Claudia Casadio (eds.), Model Based Reasoning in Science and Technology. Logical, Epistemological, and Cognitive Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
130 (#36,182)

6 months
27 (#573,316)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Greg Bamford
University of Queensland

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references