Abstract

The general question I shall consider here is this: To what are we committed when we say that we “accept” or “entertain” a scientific hypothesis? I shall be concerned with whether or not such acceptance requires an inductive inference, and in particular with whether or not Wesley Salmon's analysis of Popper's idea of “degree of corroboration” is correct. The problem of what claim we make for the hypotheses we accept is not, I think, of merely academic interest, although there is a tendency among some philosophers and scientists (of which Salmon is one) to assume that science is inductive in this respect and that any discussion of acceptance must take induction as a “given.”