Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T21:13:29.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypothetico-Deductivism, Content, and the Natural Axiomatization of Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ken Gemes
Ken Gemes*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Yale University
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Yale University, P.O. Box 3650 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Gemes (1990) I examined certain formal versions of hypothetico-deductivism (H-D) showing that they have the unacceptable consequence that “Abe is a white raven” confirms “All ravens are black”! In Gemes (1992) I developed a new notion of content that could save H-D from this bizarre consequence. In this paper, I argue that more traditional formulations of H-D also need recourse to this new notion of content. I present a new account of the vexing notion of the natural axiomatization of a theory. The notion is used to construct a form of H-D that allows for the type of selective confirmation without which Glymour (1980a,b) claims H-D is hopeless.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 477 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1993

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.)

Footnotes

†

Thanks are due to an unnamed referee from this journal who in commenting on a earlier submission on Glymour's Bootstrapping theory of confirmation suggested that my new notion of content could be applied to the problem of defining natural axiomatizations and hence be used to provide a reformulated version of hypothetico-deductivism. Also special thanks are due to David Christensen who corrected various faulty formulations in an earlier draft.

References

Carnap, R. (1935), Philosophy and Logical Syntax. New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1974), “Explanation and Scientific Understanding”, Journal of Philosophy 71: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemes, K. (1990), “Horwich and Hempel on Hypothetico-Deductivism”, Philosophy of Science 57: 609–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemes, K. (1992), “A New Theory of Content I: Basic Content”, Journal of Philosophical Logic. In press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980a), “Discussion: Hypothetico-Deductivism is Hopeless”, Philosophy of Science 47: 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980b), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grimes, T. (1990), “Truth, Content and the Hypothetico-Deductive Method”, Philosophy of Science 57: 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. ([1959] 1972), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 6th impression. Revised. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar