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.
The Popper - Carnap Controversy as a New Case Study of the Ongoing Theory - Practice Dialectic The Popper - Carnap controversy is not a new book , neither methodologically nor substantively . It is a new chapter of an old book authored ...
In brief,ifthepredictiveprobabilities depend on Tn ,then in general they arise from mixtures of Johnson–Carnap ... VII.4 The Popper–Carnap controversy Karl Popper was a lifelong and dogged opponent of Carnap's induc- tivist views.
Alex C. Michalos, The Popper-Carnap Controversy, Martinus Nijhoff. The Hague, 1971. Ernest Nagel, “Carnap's Theory of Induction', in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. by P. A. Schilpp), Open Court Publ. Co, LaSalle, I11., 1963, pp.
In popular terms, the two fronts may be called the Popper–Carnap controversy and the Popper—Kuhn controversy.” In the first case, Popper's “falsificationism” stood up against Carnap's “inductivism”: while “weak justificationism” wanted ...
The Popper–Carnap Controversy. The Hague: Mouton. Miller, D. W. 1985. 'La probabilitat des de la Logik der Forschung fins al present'. Enrahonar (Barcelona) 11 (1), 13–23. English version contained in chapter 9 of Miller 1994. 1994.
This is especially clear in the case of Carnap's discovery of ŋ and Hintikka's discovery of η inductive methods for ... 11 The confusions involved in the ' Popper - Carnap - controversy ' are discussed in detail in Michalos [ 30 ] ...
Gomez Tutor, J.J., 'Die Interpretation des kantischen Apriorismus in Poppers Frühwerk', Studi Kantiani 2 (1989), pp. 97–116. ... Michalos, A., The Popper-Carnap Controversy, Nijhoff, The Hague, 1971. Munz, P., 'Popper and Wittgenstein', ...
Most of these claims , principally those of Popper and L. J. Cohen , rest on two questionable assumptions : first ... I. Lakatos ( Amsterdam , 1968 ) , 315 ; and A. C. Michalos , The Popper - Carnap Controversy ( The Hague , 1971 ) .
Central Works of Philosophy Edited by John Shand Volume 1 : Ancient and Medieval Volume 2 : The Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Volume 3 : The Nineteenth Century Volume 4 : The Twentieth Century : Moore to Popper Volume 5 : The ...
Ayala, F.andDobzhansky, T. (eds) (1974), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, Macmillan, London. Ayer,A. (1954),'Can TherebeaPrivate Language?', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary vol.28, pp.63–76. Ayer, A.(1956) ...