Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T20:06:36.293Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Significance of Verisimilitude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Ilkk Niiniluoto
Ilkk Niiniluoto*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper defends the thesis that the concept of verisimilitude is an indispensable tool for the fallibllist and realist epistemology. Part of my argument consists in suggesting that this concept has important applications within the history and philosophy of science (Section 6). But this is not enough to convince a critical reader who suspects that talk about “closeness to the truth” is perhaps meaningless - or “mumbojumbo”, to use Laudan's (1981) expression. Surely a necessary condition for the significance of verisimilitude is its existence. Therefore, I also have to outline in some detail a programme which, at least in my view, leads to a satisfactory definition of the degrees of truthlikeness for various kinds of scientific statements (Sections 3 - 5). But first I try to give a,diagnosis of the main reasons why Popper's theory of truthlikeness failed (Sections 1 - 2).

Type
Part XV. Invited Paper: Truthlikeness
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 590 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Agassi, J (1981). “To Save Verisimilitude.” Mind 90: 576-579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augustine, St (385-386). Contra Academicos. (As reprinted as Against the Academics. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1950.Google Scholar
Bernard, C (1865). Introduction a L'etude de la Medecine Experimentale. Paris: Bailiiere et fila. (As reprinted as An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. (trans.) H.C. Green. New York: Dover, 1957.Google Scholar
Ewing, A.C (1934). Idealism: A Critical Survey. Strand: Methuen.Google Scholar
Festa, R (1985). “A Measure for the Distance Between an Interval ; Hypothesis and the Truth.” Synthese 67: 273-320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P (1979). “Dialogue on Method.” In The Structure and Development of Science. Edited by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersson. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 253-278.Google Scholar
Hardin, C.L and Rosenberg, A (1982). “In Defense of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 49: 604-615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpinen, R (1976). “Approximate Truth and Truthlikeness.” In Formal Methods in the Methodology of Empirical Sciences. Edited by Przelecki, M, Szaniawski, K and Wojcicki, R. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 19-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J, Niiniluoto, I. and Saarinen, E, (eds.). (1970). Essays in Mathematical and Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
James, W (1896). “The Will to Believe.” New WorldS: 327-347. (As reprinted in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover, 1956. Pages 1-31.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R (1984). “De Finetti's Probabilism.” Synthese 60: 73-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N (1978). “Towards a New Theory of Scientific Inquiry.” In Progress and Rationality In Science. Edited by Radnitzky, G and Andersson, G Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 253-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N (1979). “The Problems of Appraising Scientific Theories.” In Current Research in Philosophy of Science. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Kyburg, H.E Jr. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 228-251.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S (1977). “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” , In The Essential Tension. Chicago: The University of chicago Press. Pages 320-339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulpers, T.A.F (1982). “Approaching Descriptive and Theoretical Truth.” Erkenntnis 18: 343-378.Google Scholar
Laudan, L (1981). “A Confutation of Covergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48: 19-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L (1984). “Realism Without the Real.” Philosophy of Science 51: 603-617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I (1967). Gambling With Truth. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Miller, D. (1974). “Popper's Qualitative Definition of Verisimilitude.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 166-177.Google Scholar
Levi, I (1975). “The Accuracy of Predictions.” Synthese 30: 159- 191, 207-219.Google Scholar
Levi, I (1976). “Verisimilitude Deflated.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27: 363-380.Google Scholar
Levi, I (1978). “Distance Between Constituents.” Synthese 38: 197-212.Google Scholar
Levi, I (1982). “Truth, Truthlikeness, Approximate Truth.” Fundamenta Scientiae 3: 93-101.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I and Tuomela, R (1973). Theoretical Concepts and hypothetico-Inductive Inference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1977). “On the Truthllkeness of Generalizations.” In Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics. Edited by Butts, R.E and Hintikka, J. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 121-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1978). “Truthlikeness: Comments on Recent Discussion.” Synthese 38: 281-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I and Tuomela, R (eds.). (1979). The Logic and Eplstemology of Scientific Change. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1982a). “On Explicating Verisimilitude: Reply to Oddie.” The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 33: 290-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1982b). “What Shall We Do With Verisimilitude?” Philosophy of Science 49: 181-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1982c). “Truthllkeness for Quantitative Statements.” In PSA 1982, Volume 1. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Nickles, T. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 208-216.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1982d). “Inductive Logic as a Methodological Research Programme.” Scientia 117(Supplement): 77-100.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1983). “Verisimilitude vs. Legisimilitude.” Studia Logica 17: 315-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I (1984). Is Science Progressive? Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I(1986). “Theories, Approximations, Idealizations.” In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Solenoe VII. Edited by Marcus, R.B, Dorn, G.J.W and Weingartner, P. Amsterdam: North Holland, (forthcoming.Google Scholar
Oddie, G (1981a). “Verisimilitude Reviewed.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32: 237-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, G (1981b). “Cohen on Verisimilitude and Natural Necessity.” Synthese 51: 355-379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, D (1983). “Truthlikeness and Translation: A Comment on Oddie.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34: 380-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R (1935). Logik der Forschung. Wien: J. Springer. (As reprinted as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press:.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R (1974). “Autobiography of Karl Popper.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Book 1. (The Library of Living Philosophers. Volume 14.) Edited by Schlipp, P.A. La Salle: Open Court. Pages 3-181.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R (1979). Objective Knowledge. 2nd revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press:.Google Scholar
Radnitzky, G and Andersson, G (1978). “Objective Criteria of Scientific Progress? Inductivism, Falsificationsm, and Relativism.” In Progress and Rationality in Science. Edited by Radnitzky, G and Andersson, G. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 3-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkranz, R.D (1980). “Measuring Truthlikeness.” Synthese 45: 463-487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiller, F.C.S (1929). Logic for Use. London: G. Bell and Sons.Google Scholar
Tichy, P (1974). “On Popper's Definitions of Verisimilitude.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 155-160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbach, P (1983). “Intimations of Similarity: The Shaky Basis of Verisimilitude.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34: 266-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J (1978). “Corroboration and the Problem of Content-Comparison.” In Progress and Rationality in Science. Edited by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersson. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Pages 339-378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar