, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 105–118 | Cite as

On the paradox of confirmation

  • J. Canfield


Popperian Theory Quantitative Concept Popperian Solution Syntactical Definition Black Raven 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 4).
    “A Purely Syntactical Definition of Confirmation”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, V. 8 no. 4, 1943. p. 122.Google Scholar
  2. 5).
    I follow Hempel’s “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation”, Mind V. 54, no. 213, 1945, p. 13 ff.Google Scholar
  3. 8).
    See especially Carnap, op. cit., section 87.Google Scholar
  4. 9).
    “Corroboration Versus Induction”, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (BJPS) 1958, p. 312.Google Scholar
  5. 10).
    H.G. Alexander offered a similar criticism. (“The Paradoxes of Confirmation”. BJPS, V 9, no. 35, 1958.) Agassi replied to him along the same lines as the above reply to Scheffler. (Agassi. op. cit.)Google Scholar
  6. 11).
    This point was made first by Hempel in this reply to Watkin’s original article, (“Empirical Statements and Falsifiability”, Philosophy, V. 33, 1958) and has been repeated by H.G. Alexander (op. cit., and “The Paradoxes of Confirmation — A Reply to Dr. Agassi”, BJPS, V. 10, 1959) and D. Stove (“Popperian Confirmation and the Paradox of the Ravens”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, V. 37 n. 2, 1959).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Canfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations