Reply to harnatt

Abstract

Summary Canfield and Lehrer argued in [1] that it is impossible to predict an event deductively from given laws and initial conditions. In [2] I showed (1) that there are counterexamples to C&L's claim, (2) that their argument was based on an assumption which they failed to recognize, let alone support (the assumption that there are ‘rejectible’ facts), (3) that if certain simple conditions on predictability were granted, it could be shown that C&L's tacit assumption is false. In a recent issue of this Journal Dr. Harnatt has criticized (3) (ignoring (1) and (2)), and he has concluded that we should still wonder whether there are any deductive predictions. Dr. Harnatt's arguments are shown to be defective

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,805

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
28 (#413,310)

6 months
1 (#386,031)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

A Note on Prediction and Deduction.John Canfield & Keith Lehrer - 1961 - Philosophy of Science 28 (2):204-208.
Deductive Predictions.José Alberto Coffa - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (3):279-283.
Zum Beweis der Nichtexistenz Von „Störenden Bedingungen“.J. Harnatt - 1975 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 6 (1):108-112.
Zum Beweis der Nichtexistenz von „störenden Bedingungen“.J. Harnatt - 1975 - Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 6 (1):108-112.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Zum Beweis der Nichtexistenz von „störenden Bedingungen“.J. Harnatt - 1975 - Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 6 (1):108-112.
Zum Beweis der Nichtexistenz Von „Störenden Bedingungen“.J. Harnatt - 1975 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 6 (1):108-112.
In Defence of Anthropomorphic Theism.Peter Forrest - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (1):105 - 122.
Reply to Tuomela’s Reply to My Reply.John Wettersten - 2012 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (1):124-125.
Reply to Parsons, Reply to Heller, and Reply to Rea. [REVIEW]Hud Hudson - 2008 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (2):452-470.
A Logic of Message and Reply.David Harrah - 1984 - Synthese 58 (2):275 - 294.
A Logic of Message and Reply.David Harrah - 1985 - Synthese 63 (3):275 - 294.
Reconsidering Bohr's Reply to EPR.Hans Halvorson & Rob Clifton - 2001 - In T. Placek & J. Butterfield (eds.), Non-locality and Modality. Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 3--18.
Reply to Maurice Natanson's Reply.Van Meter Ames - 1956 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 17 (2):246 - 247.
In Defence of Particularism: A Reply to Stokes.Matthew R. X. Dentith - 2016 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (11):27-33.