Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T00:35:19.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confirming Inexact Generalizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Ernest W. Adams
Ernest W. Adams*
Affiliation:
University of California-Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An inexact generalization like ‘ravens are black’ will be symbolized as a prepositional function with free variables thus: ‘Rx ⇒ Bx.’ The antecedent ‘Rx’ and consequent ‘Bx’ will themselves be called absolute formulas, while the result of writing the non-boolean connective ‘⇒’ between them is conditional. Absolute formulas are arbitrary first-order formulas and include the exact generalization ‘(x)(Rx → Bx)’ and sentences with individual constants like ‘Rc & Bc.’ On the other hand the non-boolean conditional ‘⇒’ can only occur as the main connective in a formula. We shall also need to consider formulas with more than one free variable such as ‘xHy ⇒ xTy,’ which might express ‘if x is the husband of y then x is taller than y.’ Though it is inessential, it will simplify things to work in ‘n-languages’ with a finite number of individual constants c1,…, cn, which are interpreted as denoting the elements of the domains of the ‘n-models’ to be described below.

Type
Part I. Confirmation and Scientific Laws
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 10 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

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.)

References

Adams, E.W. (1975). “The Logic of ‘Almost all’.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 3: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, E.W. (1986). “Continuity and Idealizability of Approximate Generalizations.” Synthese 67: 439–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, E.W. and Carlstrom, I.R. (1979). “Representing Approximate Ordering and Equivalence Relations.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 19: 182–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlstrom, I.F. (1975). “Truth and Entailment for a Vague Quantifier.” Synthese 30: 461–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). The Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hardy, G.H., Littlewood, J.E. and Polya, G. (1952). Inequalities 2nd. edition. Cambridge: The University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. (1945). “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation.” Mind 54: 1–26 and 97-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1966). “A Two-Dimensional Continuum of Inductive Methods.” In Aspects of Inductive Logic. Edited by Hintikka, J. and Suppes, P. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, D.N. (1978). “Probability Logic.” Annals of Mathematical Logic 14: 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, D.N. (1982). “A Normal Form Theorem for Lw, with Applications.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 47: 605–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J. (1913). “Die Logische Grundlagen der Wahrscheinlichkeits-rechnung.” Reprinted as “Logical Foundations of Probability Theory” in Jan Lukasiewicz Selected Works. Edited by Borkowski, L.. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R.D. (1977). Inference, Method and Decision. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1912). “On Induction.” Chapter VI of The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1966). “A Bayesian Approach to the Paradoxes of Confirmation.” In Aspects of Inductive Logic. Edited by Hintikka, J. and Suppes, P. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar