bas van fraassen’s philosophy blog

About Explosion and Reductio ad Absurdum

A reductio ad absurdum to eliminate a negation is not valid in Intuitionistic logic.  But that is not the only place in logic where arguments by reductio are considered invalid.  And historically, reductio arguments have been criticized on many grounds since even before Descartes and the Port Royal Logic regarded them with disfavor. 1.      The principles of Explosion and Reductio There…

by Bas van Fraassen

Empirical support Glymour-bootstrap style

Clark Glymour introduced his bootstrapping methodology, ca. 1980, as a way to gauge relevant evidence for a hypothesis by data (deliverances of measurement) relative to a theory. Especially striking in this conception of evidence was its application to parts of the same theory, via other parts of the theory, relative to that theory. As a conception of evidence this clashed…

by Bas van Fraassen

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

2 thoughts on “bas van fraassen’s philosophy blog”

  1. Dear Prof van Fraassen,

    In modern science there is a shift in focus from final causes to the search for efficient/mechanical causes. People spoke about “laws” of nature and extended this view to human society. August Comte represents this view and via him it influenced sociology (Emile Durkheim) and perhaps also public relations (Edward Bernays).  Could you comment upon this?

    Thank you.

    Leendert Brouwer

    Like

  2. I think that:

    – knowledge starts with the experience of facts of Nature,

    – we can formulate hypotheses, but as long as they are not confirmed by asking Nature, they are just hypotheses,

    – Nature doesn’t have to answer all of our questions to her,

    – sometimes we don’t get an answer from Nature,

    – when we don’t get an answer, this is never a license to invent an answer,

    – the only decent attitude is recognize “I don’t know” and stop there.

    (I’m skipping identifying the “metaphysical” positions in all this, which I’ll deny is metaphysics at all, but will accept as “hypotheses” till verified)

    Am I a constructive empiricist?

    Like

Leave a comment