Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 9, pp 1647–1687 | Cite as

The content, consequence and likeness approaches to verisimilitude: compatibility, trivialization, and underdetermination

  • Graham Oddie
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Verisimilitude Truthlikeness Closeness to truth Likeness to truth Distance from the truth Distances between propositions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hilpinen R. et al (1976) Approximate truth and truthlikeness. In: Przelecki M. (eds) Formal methods in the methodology of the empirical sciences. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 19–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kieseppä I. (1996) Truthlikess for multidimensional, quantitative cognitive problems. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Miller D. (1974) Popper’s qualitative theory of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Miller D. (2006) Out of error: Further essays on critical rationalism. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  7. Mortensen C. (1983) Relevance and verisimilitude. Synthese 55(6): 353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Niiniluoto I. (1987) Truthlikeness. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Oddie G. (1978) Verisimilitude and distance in logical space. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30(2–4): 227–243Google Scholar
  14. Oddie G. (1986) Likeness to truth. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oddie G., Milne P. (1991) Act and value: Expectations and the representability of moral theories. Theoria 48: 165–182Google Scholar
  16. Popper K. R. (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Popper K. R. (1976) A note on verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27(2): 147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Schurz G., Weingartner P. (2010) Zwart and Franssen’s impossibility theorem holds for possible-world-accounts but not for consequence-accounts to verisimilitude. Synthese 172(3): 415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Teller P. (2001) The twilight of the perfect model model. Erkenntnis 55(3): 393–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tichý P. (1974) On Popper’s definitions of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tichý P. (1976) Verisimilitude redefined. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27: 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tichý P. (1978) Verisimilitude revisited. Synthese 38: 175–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tuomela R. (1978) Verisimilitude and theory distance. Synthese 38: 213–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weston T. (1990) Approximate truth and scientific realism. Philosophy of Science 59: 53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zwart S. D. (2001) Refined verisimilitude. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  27. Zwart S. D., Franssen M. (2007) An impossibility theorem for verisimilitude. Synthese 158(1): 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations