(C) instances, the relevance criterion, and the paradoxes of confirmation

Philosophy of Science 45 (2):289-302 (1978)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Relevance Criterion of confirmation gained prominence as the underlying principle of the class-size approach (CSA) to Hempel's paradoxes of confirmation. The CSA, however, yields counter-intuitive results for (c) instances, and this failing cast serious doubt on the acceptability of the Relevance Criterion. In this paper an attempt is made to rescue the Relevance Criterion from this embarrassment. This is done by incorporating that criterion into a new resolution of the paradoxes, a resolution based on a theory of selective confirmation and a distinction between mere confirmation in principle and evaluative confirmation (E-confirmation)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,069

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

The relevance criterion of confirmation.J. L. Mackie - 1969 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):27-40.
Confirmation and prediction.G. H. Merrill - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (1):98-117.
Queries on Hempel’s solution to the paradoxes of confirmation.Dun Xinguo - 2007 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (1):131-139.
The paradoxes of confirmation - a survey.R. Swinburne - 1971 - American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (4):318 - 330.
Confirmation Theory and Confirmation Logic.Chao-Tien Lin - 1988 - Dissertation, The University of British Columbia (Canada)
Bayesian pseudo-confirmation, use-novelty, and genuine confirmation.Gerhard Schurz - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45:87-96.
The Objective Confirmation of Hypotheses.Nathan Stemmer - 1981 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):395 - 404.
On the equivalence of Goodman’s and Hempel’s paradoxes.Kenneth Boyce - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45:32-42.
Confirmation, Paradoxes of.J. D. Trout - 2017 - In W. H. Newton‐Smith (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 53–55.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
84 (#205,603)

6 months
5 (#710,385)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Hempel's Raven paradox: A lacuna in the standard bayesian solution.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):545-560.
Bayesianism, Ravens, and Evidential Relevance.Robert T. Pennock - 2004 - Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 13 (1):1-26.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The paradox of confirmation.J. L. Mackie - 1962 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13 (52):265-277.
The paradox of confirmation.J. L. Mackie - 1963 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13 (52):265-276.
The paradoxes of confirmation - a survey.R. Swinburne - 1971 - American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (4):318 - 330.
The relevance criterion of confirmation.J. L. Mackie - 1969 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1):27-40.
The paradoxes of confirmation.H. G. Alexander - 1958 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9 (35):227-233.

View all 6 references / Add more references