The Paradox of Confirmation: A Consideration of Solutions based on the Rejection of Nicod’s Condition

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Author

Abstract

The paradox of confirmation results from two principles: first, Nicod’s condition, second, equivalence condition. Thus solutions to the paradox are of two types: first, solutions based on the rejection of Nicod’s condition, and second, ones based on the rejection of equivalence condition. After illustrating the paradox of confirmation, i shall examin solutions based on the rejection of Nicod’s condition: (a) Hempel’s solution, (b) solution based on standard Bayesianism, (c) Good’s solution, (d) Quine’s solution.

Keywords

References

  1. لاریجانی، صادق (مهر 1367)، «نقدی بر مقاله قبض و بسط تئوریک شریعت»، کیهان فرهنگی، سال پنجم، ش7، شماره پیاپی 55، ص9-14.
  2. نیری، حمید (آذر 1367)، «قبض اندیشه و ادعای خلوص»، در: کیهان فرهنگی، سال پنجم،‌ش9، شماره پیاپی 57، ص16-20.
  3. وحید دستجردی، حمید (1374)،«بازآموزی پارادوکس تأیید، فکر دینی و جدال با مدعی»، در سروش، عبدالکریم، قبض و بسط تئوریک شریعت؛ نظریه تکامل معرفت دینی، تهران: صراط،ص625-672.

 

 

  1. Earman, Jhon (1992),Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  2. Eells, Ellery (1982),Rational Decision and Causality, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Gibson, L. (1969), “On Ravens and Relevance and a Likelihood Solution of the Paradox of Confirmation” in British Jornal For The Philosophy, 20 (1): 75-80.
  4. Godfrey, Peter, (2003), Theory and Reality, an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
  5. Good, L. J. (1967), “The White Shoe is a Red Herring”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 17, No. 4.
  6. Good, (1983), Good Thinking The Foundations of Probability and Its Applications, U.S.A: The University of Minnesota.

10. Hempel, Carl.G. (1967), "TheWhite Shoe - No Red Herring, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science", Vol. 18, No. 3.

11. _______(1970),"Studies in the Logic of Confirmation", in: Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, New York: The Free Press.

12. _______ (1945), Studies in Logic and Confirmation.Mind 54, 1-26.

13. Howson, Urbach, (1993),Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, Open Court Publishing Company.

14. Humburg, Jurgen(1975), “The solution of Hempel's raven paradox in Rudolf Carnap'ssystem of inductive logic”, Erkenntnis, Vol. 24, No. 1.

15. Lipton, Peter, (2004), “Inference to the Best Explanation, London, second edition.

16. Mackie, J. (1963), “the Paradox of Confirmation”, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. Vol. 13, No. 52.

17. Nicod, Jean (1930), Foundations of Geometry and Induction (translated by P. P. Winner), London.

18. Godfrey,Peter, (2003), Theory and Reality, an Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

19. Quine, WV (1969) “Natural Kinds”, in Ontological Relativity and other Essays". New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

20. Sornsen, Roy, (2003), a Brief History of the Paradox, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

21. Stathis Psillos (2009), Knowing the Structure of Nature, Essays on Realism and Explanation, Palgrave Macmillan.

22. Swinburne, R. G., (1971), “The paradoxes of Confirmation – A Survey”, American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4.

 

Naqd Va Nazar
Volume 17, Issue 68 - Serial Number 68
November 2012
Pages 96-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics