Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:01:11.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

(C) Instances, the Relevance Criterion, and the Paradoxes of Confirmation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Phillip J. Rody
Phillip J. Rody*
Affiliation:
Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Relevance Criterion of confirmation gained prominence as the underlying principle of the class-size approach (CSA) to Hempel's paradoxes of confirmation. The CSA, however, yields counter-intuitive results for (c) instances, and this failing cast serious doubt on the acceptability of the Relevance Criterion. In this paper an attempt is made to rescue the Relevance Criterion from this embarrassment. This is done by incorporating that criterion into a new resolution of the paradoxes, a resolution based on a theory of selective confirmation and a distinction between mere confirmation in principle and evaluative confirmation (E-confirmation).

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 289 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1978

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

†

This paper is adapted from chapter IV of my Ph.D. dissertation “Confirmation And Paradox,” University of Toronto, 1976. An earlier version of the paper was read at the 1976 Congress of the Canadian Philosophical Association in Quebec City. The paper was read in my absence by Diane Huberman. I wish to thank the Canada Council for generous financial support, and Keith Arnold, Diane Huberman, Andrew Lugg, and John Thorp for helpful discussions on the topic.

References

[1] Alexander, H. “The Paradoxes of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9 (1958–1959): 227–233.10.1093/bjps/IX.35.227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Hooker, C. and Stove, C. “Relevance and the Ravens,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18 (1967–1968): 305–315.10.1093/bjps/18.4.305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Mackie, J. “The Paradox of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13 (1962–1963): 265–277.10.1093/bjps/XIII.52.265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Mackie, J. “The Relevance Criterion of Confirmation,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 20 (1969): 27–40.10.1093/bjps/20.1.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Swinburne, R. “The Paradoxes of Confirmation—A Survey,” American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (1971): 318–330.Google Scholar