The content, consequence and likeness approaches to verisimilitude: compatibility, trivialization, and underdetermination
Theories of verisimilitude have routinely been classified into two rival camps—the content approach and the likeness approach—and these appear to be motivated by very different sets of data and principles. The question thus naturally arises as to whether these approaches can be fruitfully combined. Recently Zwart and Franssen (Synthese 158(1):75–92, 2007) have offered precise analyses of the content and likeness approaches, and shown that given these analyses any attempt to meld content and likeness orderings violates some basic desiderata. Unfortunately their characterizations of the approaches do not embrace the paradigm examples of those approaches. I offer somewhat different characterizations of these two approaches, as well as of the consequence approach (Schurz and Weingartner (Synthese 172(3):415–436, 2010) which happily embrace their respective paradigms. Finally I prove that the three approaches are indeed compatible, but only just, and that the cost of combining them is too high. Any account which combines the strictures of what I call the strong likeness approach with the demands of either the content or the consequence approach suffers from precisely the same defect as Popper’s—namely, it entails the trivialization of truthlikeness. The downside of eschewing the strong likeness constraints and embracing the content constraints alone is the underdetermination of the concept of truthlikeness.
KeywordsVerisimilitude Truthlikeness Closeness to truth Likeness to truth Distance from the truth Distances between propositions
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Kuipers, T. (1987). A structuralist approach to truthlikeness. In T. Kuipers What is closer-to-the-truth? A parade of approaches to truthlikeness. Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities (Vol. 10, pp. 79–99). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
- Miller D. et al (1978) On distance from the truth as a true distance. In: Hintikka J. (eds) Essays on mathematical and philosophical logic. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 415–435Google Scholar
- Miller D. (2006) Out of error: Further essays on critical rationalism. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
- Mormann, T. (2005). Geometry of logic and truth approximation. In R. Festa, et al. (Eds.) Poznan studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities: Confirmation, empirical progress and truth approximation (Vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 431–454). Amsterdam: GruenerGoogle Scholar
- Mormann, T. (2006). Truthlikeness for theories on countable languages. In I. Jarvie, et al. (Eds.), Karl Popper: A centenary assessment. Volume III: Science (pp. 3–15). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Niiniluoto I. et al (1977) On the truthlikeness of generalizations. In: Butts R. E. (eds) Basic problems in methodology and linguistics. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 121–147Google Scholar
- Niiniluoto I. et al (2003) Content and likeness definitions of verisimilitude. In: Hintikka J. (eds) Philosophy and logic: In search of the polish tradition. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 27–36Google Scholar
- Oddie G. (1978) Verisimilitude and distance in logical space. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30(2–4): 227–243Google Scholar
- Oddie G., Milne P. (1991) Act and value: Expectations and the representability of moral theories. Theoria 48: 165–182Google Scholar
- Popper K. R. (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Schurz G., Weingartner P. (1987) Verisimilitude defined by relevant consequence-elements. In: Kuipers T. A. (eds) What is closer-to-the-truth?. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 47–78Google Scholar
- Zwart S. D. (2001) Refined verisimilitude. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar