A Rejoinder to Professor Hempel's Reply

Philosophy 33 (127):349 - 355 (1958)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Object of this reply. A chap like myself, who struggles along with an amateur's box of logical tools, is bound to feel uneasy when his arguments are probed by the kind of logical precision-instruments which Professor Hempel manipulates so effortlessly. Yet after painstakingly working over his technical arguments, and after appealing for expert assistance on matters outside my competence,1 I have reached the surprising and agreeable conclusion that my argument stands intact and that Professor Hempel's criticisms reveal once more the hopelessness of the position he defends—or rather, of the position he now defends

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

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

A reply to professor grünbaum's rejoinder.Herbert Dingle - 1961 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12 (46):156-157.
A reply to professor Dewey's rejoinder.Edward Gleason Spaulding - 1911 - Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 8 (21):566-574.
Reply to Barker's criticism of formalism.Henry Jack - 1959 - Philosophy of Science 26 (4):355-361.
Reply to professor körner.J. W. N. Watkins - 1960 - Mind 69 (275):406-407.
The paradox of confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
Alter et etiam: Rejoinder to Schepers.Marcelo Dascal - 2004 - The Leibniz Review 14:137-151.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
27 (#574,515)

6 months
12 (#200,125)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references