The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /

1 In 1954 Karl Popper published an article attempting to show that the identification of the quantitative concept degree of confirmation with the quantitative concept degree of probability is a serious error. The error was presumably committed by J. M. Keynes, H. Reichen­ bach and R. Carnap. 2 It was Popper's intention then, to expose the error and to introduce an explicatum for the prescientific concept of degree of confirmation. A few months later Y. Bar-Hillel published an article attempting to show that no serious error had been committed (particularly by Carnap) and that the problem introduced by Popper was simply a "verbal one. "3 Popper replied immediately that "Dr. Bar-Hillel forces me [Popper] now to criticize Carnap's theory further," and he [Popper] introduced further objections which, if accepted, destroy Carnap's theory. 4 About eight years after this exchange took place I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago in search of a topic for a doctoral dissertation. An investigation of the issues involved in this exchange seemed to be ideal for me because I had (and still have) a great ad­ miration for the work of both Carnap and Popper. A thoroughly revised and I hope improved account of that investigation appears in the first five chapters of this book. Put very briefly, what I found were four main points of contention.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michalos, Alex C. author., SpringerLink (Online service)
Format: Texto biblioteca
Language:eng
Published: Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands, 1971
Subjects:Philosophy., Philosophy and science., Philosophy of Science., Philosophy, general.,
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3048-9
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id KOHA-OAI-TEST:224377
record_format koha
spelling KOHA-OAI-TEST:2243772018-07-31T00:04:16ZThe Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] / Michalos, Alex C. author. SpringerLink (Online service) textDordrecht : Springer Netherlands,1971.eng1 In 1954 Karl Popper published an article attempting to show that the identification of the quantitative concept degree of confirmation with the quantitative concept degree of probability is a serious error. The error was presumably committed by J. M. Keynes, H. Reichen­ bach and R. Carnap. 2 It was Popper's intention then, to expose the error and to introduce an explicatum for the prescientific concept of degree of confirmation. A few months later Y. Bar-Hillel published an article attempting to show that no serious error had been committed (particularly by Carnap) and that the problem introduced by Popper was simply a "verbal one. "3 Popper replied immediately that "Dr. Bar-Hillel forces me [Popper] now to criticize Carnap's theory further," and he [Popper] introduced further objections which, if accepted, destroy Carnap's theory. 4 About eight years after this exchange took place I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago in search of a topic for a doctoral dissertation. An investigation of the issues involved in this exchange seemed to be ideal for me because I had (and still have) a great ad­ miration for the work of both Carnap and Popper. A thoroughly revised and I hope improved account of that investigation appears in the first five chapters of this book. Put very briefly, what I found were four main points of contention.I: Introduction -- II: Acceptability and Logical Improbability -- III: Two Explicanda and Three Arguments -- IV: Bar-Hillel’s “Comments” and Unrestricted Universals -- V: Instance and Qualified-Instance Confirmation -- VI: The Singular Predictive Inference -- VII: Lakatos on Appraisal, Growth and Analytic Guides -- VIII: Hintikka and Hilpinen on Inductive Generalzation -- IX: Cost-Benefit Versus Expected Utility Acceptance Rules -- List of Reference.1 In 1954 Karl Popper published an article attempting to show that the identification of the quantitative concept degree of confirmation with the quantitative concept degree of probability is a serious error. The error was presumably committed by J. M. Keynes, H. Reichen­ bach and R. Carnap. 2 It was Popper's intention then, to expose the error and to introduce an explicatum for the prescientific concept of degree of confirmation. A few months later Y. Bar-Hillel published an article attempting to show that no serious error had been committed (particularly by Carnap) and that the problem introduced by Popper was simply a "verbal one. "3 Popper replied immediately that "Dr. Bar-Hillel forces me [Popper] now to criticize Carnap's theory further," and he [Popper] introduced further objections which, if accepted, destroy Carnap's theory. 4 About eight years after this exchange took place I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago in search of a topic for a doctoral dissertation. An investigation of the issues involved in this exchange seemed to be ideal for me because I had (and still have) a great ad­ miration for the work of both Carnap and Popper. A thoroughly revised and I hope improved account of that investigation appears in the first five chapters of this book. Put very briefly, what I found were four main points of contention.Philosophy.Philosophy and science.Philosophy.Philosophy of Science.Philosophy, general.Springer eBookshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3048-9URN:ISBN:9789401030489
institution COLPOS
collection Koha
country México
countrycode MX
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
En linea
databasecode cat-colpos
tag biblioteca
region America del Norte
libraryname Departamento de documentación y biblioteca de COLPOS
language eng
topic Philosophy.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy, general.
Philosophy.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy, general.
spellingShingle Philosophy.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy, general.
Philosophy.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy, general.
Michalos, Alex C. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
description 1 In 1954 Karl Popper published an article attempting to show that the identification of the quantitative concept degree of confirmation with the quantitative concept degree of probability is a serious error. The error was presumably committed by J. M. Keynes, H. Reichen­ bach and R. Carnap. 2 It was Popper's intention then, to expose the error and to introduce an explicatum for the prescientific concept of degree of confirmation. A few months later Y. Bar-Hillel published an article attempting to show that no serious error had been committed (particularly by Carnap) and that the problem introduced by Popper was simply a "verbal one. "3 Popper replied immediately that "Dr. Bar-Hillel forces me [Popper] now to criticize Carnap's theory further," and he [Popper] introduced further objections which, if accepted, destroy Carnap's theory. 4 About eight years after this exchange took place I was in graduate school at the University of Chicago in search of a topic for a doctoral dissertation. An investigation of the issues involved in this exchange seemed to be ideal for me because I had (and still have) a great ad­ miration for the work of both Carnap and Popper. A thoroughly revised and I hope improved account of that investigation appears in the first five chapters of this book. Put very briefly, what I found were four main points of contention.
format Texto
topic_facet Philosophy.
Philosophy and science.
Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science.
Philosophy, general.
author Michalos, Alex C. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_facet Michalos, Alex C. author.
SpringerLink (Online service)
author_sort Michalos, Alex C. author.
title The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
title_short The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
title_full The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
title_fullStr The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
title_full_unstemmed The Popper-Carnap Controversy [electronic resource] /
title_sort popper-carnap controversy [electronic resource] /
publisher Dordrecht : Springer Netherlands,
publishDate 1971
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3048-9
work_keys_str_mv AT michalosalexcauthor thepoppercarnapcontroversyelectronicresource
AT springerlinkonlineservice thepoppercarnapcontroversyelectronicresource
AT michalosalexcauthor poppercarnapcontroversyelectronicresource
AT springerlinkonlineservice poppercarnapcontroversyelectronicresource
_version_ 1756270702445461504