Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 511–538 | Cite as

The Logic of Theory Assessment



This paper starts by indicating the analysis of Hempel’s conditions of adequacy for any relation of confirmation (Hempel, 1945) as presented in Huber (submitted). There I argue contra Carnap (1962, Section 87) that Hempel felt the need for two concepts of confirmation: one aiming at plausible theories and another aiming at informative theories. However, he also realized that these two concepts are conflicting, and he gave up the concept of confirmation aiming at informative theories. The main part of the paper consists in working out the claim that one can have Hempel’s cake and eat it too — in the sense that there is a logic of theory assessment that takes into account both of the two conflicting aspects of plausibility and informativeness. According to the semantics of this logic, α is an acceptable theory for evidence β if and only if α is both sufficiently plausible given β and sufficiently informative about β. This is spelt out in terms of ranking functions (Spohn, 1988) and shown to represent the syntactically specified notion of an assessment relation. The paper then compares these acceptability relations to explanatory and confirmatory consequence relations (Flach, 2000) as well as to nonmonotonic consequence relations (Kraus et al., 1990). It concludes by relating the plausibility-informativeness approach to Carnap’s positive relevance account, thereby shedding new light on Carnap’s analysis as well as solving another problem of confirmation theory.

Key words

confirmation theory consequence relations plausibility-informativeness theory probability measures ranking functions theory assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carnap, R.: 1962, Logical Foundations of Probability, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Christensen, D.: 1999, Measuring confirmation, Journal of Philosophy 96, 437–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fitelson, B.: 1999, The plurality of Bayesian measures of confirmation and the problem of measure sensitivity, Philosophy of Science 66, S362–S378 (Proceedings).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Flach, P.A.: 2000, Logical characterisations of inductive learning, in D. M. Gabbay and R. Kruse (eds.), Abductive Reasoning and Learning, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 155–196.Google Scholar
  5. Gabbay, D.M.: 1985, Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems, in K. R. Apt (ed.), Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, NATO ASI Series 13, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 439–457.Google Scholar
  6. Hempel, C.G.: 1945, Studies in the logic of confirmation, Mind 54, 1–26, 97–121.Google Scholar
  7. Huber, F.: 2006, Ranking functions and rankings on languages, Artificial Intelligence 170, 462–471.Google Scholar
  8. Huber, F.: 2005, What is the point of confirmation? Philosophy of Science 72, 1146–1159.Google Scholar
  9. Huber, F.: (to appear), Assessing Theories, Bayes Style, Synthese.Google Scholar
  10. Huber, F.: (submitted), Hempel’s Logic of Confirmation.Google Scholar
  11. Joyce, J.M. 1999, The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Kraus, S., Lehmann, D. and Magidor, M.: 1990, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models, and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence 40, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Makinson, D.: 1989, General theory of cumulative inference, in M. Reinfrank, J. de Kleer, M. L. Ginsberg, and E. Sandewall (eds.), Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 346, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  14. Milne, P.: 2000, Is there a logic of confirmation transfer? Erkenntnis 53, 309–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Spohn, W.: 1988, Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states, in W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics II, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 105–134.Google Scholar
  16. Zwirn, D. and Zwirn, H.P.: 1996, Metaconfirmation, Theory and Decision 41, 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA

Personalised recommendations