Grue‐Green and Some Mistakes in Confirmation Theory

Dialectica 28 (3‐4):197-210 (1974)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

SummaryIt is argued, contrary to Nelson Goodman, that confirmability is not a semantical property possessed by some hypotheses. Instead, hypotheses are confirmed or disconfirmed on the basis of all relevant information, not just postivie or negative instances

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

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

Evidence, Hypothesis, and Grue.Alfred Schramm - 2014 - Erkenntnis 79 (3):571-591.
Goodman, 'grue' and Hempel.C. A. Hooker - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (3):232-247.
Evidence and Confirmation.Colin Howson - 2000 - In W. Newton-Smith (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. pp. 108–116.
Goodman's Paradox.Shui-Chuen Lee - 1981 - Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
General Relativity and the Standard Model: Why evidence for one does not disconfirm the other.Nicholaos Jones - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (2):124-132.
Genuine confirmation and tacking by conjunction.Michael Schippers & Gerhard Schurz - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (1):321-352.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-21

Downloads
10 (#395,257)

6 months
4 (#1,635,958)

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