Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T20:36:54.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Objective Confirmation of Hypotheses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Nathan Stemmer
Nathan Stemmer*
Affiliation:
Bar-llan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Nicod's criterion of confirmation ([7]), a hypothesis of the form ‘All P are Q’ is confirmed by its positive instances, i.e. by entities that are P and Q. It is well known, however, that the criterion gives origin to counterintuitive results. For example, it sanctions the confirmation of ‘All nonblacks are nonravens’ by a nonblack nonraven. Since this hypothesis is logically equivalent to ‘All ravens are black,’ it follows that the criterion indirectly sanctions the counterintuitive confirmation of ‘All ravens are black’ by a non black nonraven, e.g. by a white shoe.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 395 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1] Ackerman, R. ‘Sortal Predicates and Confirmation,’ Philosophical Studies 20 (1969) 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Blum, A. ‘Sortals and Paradox,’ Philosophical Studies, 22 (1971) 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Clark, E. ‘What is in a Word? On the Child's Acquisition of Semantics in his First Language,’ in Moore, T.E. (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (New York: Academic Press 1973).Google Scholar
[4] Friedman, K. ‘Son of Grue: Simplicity vs. Entrenchment,’ Nous 7 (1973) 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Goodman, N. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1965).Google Scholar
[6] Hempel, C. G. Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: The Free Press 1965).Google Scholar
[7] Nicod, J. Geometry and Induction (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul 1969) (first published in French, 1923/1924).Google Scholar
[8] Quine, W.V. ‘Natural Kinds,’ in Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, edited by Rescher, N. (Dordrecht: Reidel 1969) 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Salmon, W.C. ‘On Vindicating Induction,’ in Induction: Some Current Issues, edited by Kyburg, H.E. Jr. and Nagel, E. (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan U.P. 1963) 27–41.Google Scholar
[10] Stemmer, N. ‘Three Problems in Induction,’ Synthese, 23 (1971) 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Stemmer, N. ‘A Relative Notion of Natural Generalization,’ Philosophy of Science, 42 (1975) 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Stemmer, N. ‘Cognitive Aspects of Language Acquisition,’ in Child Language-1975, edited by Raffler-Engel, W. von (Milford, Conn.: International Linguistic Association 1976) (Corresponds to Word, 27 (1971) 158-169.)Google Scholar
[13] Stemmer, N. ‘A Partial Solution to the Goodman Paradox,’ Philosophical Studies, 34 (1978) 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Sutherland, N.S. The Methods and Findings of Experiments on the Visual Discrimination of Shape in Animals, Experimental Psychological Society, Monograph No.1, 1961.Google Scholar
[15] Ullian, J.S. ‘More on “Grue” and Grue,’ The Philosophical Review, 70 (1961) 386–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Zabludowski, A. ‘Concerning a Fiction about how Facts are Forecast,’ Journal of Philosophy, 71 (1974) 97–112.Google Scholar