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.
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
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 |