Abstract
Investigations in meta-theoretical topics such as the definability of disposition terms or the explication of qualitative and quantitative concepts of confirmation, as well as discussions of various systems of modal logic, e.g., deontic logic, often deal with a number of well known paradoxes. In general, classical logic is used in deriving the paradox of the ravens, Goodman's paradox, the paradoxes of derived obligation, etc. The questions whether these paradoxes depend essentially on the use of classical logic and whether they can be avoided by using intuitionistic or minimal logic are considered.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literatur
Carnap, R.: 1936/37, ‘Testability and Meaning’, Philosophy of Science 3: 419–471; 4: 1–40.
Gethmann, C. F.: 1980, ‘Die Logik der Wissenschaftstheorie’, in Gethmann, C. F. (ed.), Theorie des wissenschaftlichen Argumentierens, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, S. 15–42.
Goodman, N.: 1965, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, 2. Aufl., Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hempel, C. G.: 1965, Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science New York: Free Press.
Johansson, I.: 1937, ‘Der Minimalalkül’, Compositio Mathematica 4: 119–136.
Kutschera, F. v.: 1972, Wissenschaftstheorie I, München: Fink.
Kutschera, F. v.: 1973, Eiführung in die Logik der Normen, Werte und Entscheidungen, Freiburg: Alber.
Lenzen, W.: 1974, Theorien der Bestätigung wissenschaftlicher Hypothesen, Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Prior, A. N.: 1954, ‘The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation’, Mind 63: 64–65.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hegselmann, R., Raub, W. Zur logikabhängigkeit wissenschafts-theoretischer Paradoxien. Erkenntnis 17, 349–359 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182674
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182674