Comments on Mr. Hempel's Theses

Review of Metaphysics 5 (4):622 - 627 (1952)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

2. Because of the possibility of lies, or the misuse of language, I believe that Professor Hempel's formulation of the problem of empirical certainty must be interpreted as a convenient abbreviation, in linguistic terms, of a question about beliefs. A complete formulation of the question would have to make some reference to the speaker's beliefs as he utters an "experiential statement."

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,672

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

Reply to David L. Miller's comments.Carl G. Hempel & Paul Oppenheim - 1948 - Philosophy of Science 15 (4):350-352.
Some Theses on Empirical Certainty.Carl G. Hempel - 1952 - Review of Metaphysics 5 (4):621 - 622.
Response to Comments.Carl G. Hempel - 1952 - Review of Metaphysics 5 (4):628 - 629.
Comments on professor Postow's paper.Roderick Firth - 1978 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39 (1):122-123.
Abstracts of comments.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1976 - Noûs 10 (1):33-34.
Comments and replies.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1978 - Philosophia 7 (3-4):597-636.
The paradox of confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
Reply to professor Roderick Chisholm and comments.Henri Lefebvre - 1969 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 30 (1):22-30.
Comments on professor Hempel's "the concept of cognitive significance".Gustav Bergmann - 1951 - Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 80:78--86.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
22 (#705,671)

6 months
3 (#962,988)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references