Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 16, pp 3307–3324 | Cite as

Verisimilitude and belief change for nomic conjunctive theories

  • Gustavo Cevolani
  • Roberto Festa
  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we address the problem of truth approximation through theory change, asking whether revising our theories by newly acquired data leads us closer to the truth about a given domain. More particularly, we focus on “nomic conjunctive theories”, i.e., theories expressed as conjunctions of logically independent statements concerning the physical or, more generally, nomic possibilities and impossibilities of the domain under inquiry. We define both a comparative and a quantitative notion of the verisimilitude of such theories, and identify suitable conditions concerning the (partial) correctness of acquired data, under which revising our theories by data leads us closer to “the nomic truth”, construed as the target of scientific inquiry. We conclude by indicating some further developments, generalizations, and open issues arising from our results.

Keywords

Nomic verisimilitude Truthlikeness Truth approximation Belief change Belief revision AGM 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aliseda A. (2005) Lacunae, empirical progress and semantic tableaux. In: Festa R., Aliseda A., Peijnenburg J. (Eds.) Confirmation, empirical progress, and truth approximation. Rodopi, Amsterdam/New York, pp 141–161Google Scholar
  3. Burger I. C., Heidema J. (2005) For better, for worse: Comparative orderings on states and theories. In: Festa R., Aliseda A., Peijnenburg J. (Eds.) Confirmation, empirical progress, and truth approximation. Essays in debate with Theo Kuipers. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 459–488Google Scholar
  4. Carnap R. (1950) Logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Cevolani G., Crupi V., Festa R. (2010) The whole truth about Linda: Probability, verisimilitude and a paradox of conjunction. In: D’Agostino M., Giorello G., Laudisa F., Pievani T., Sinigaglia C. (Eds.) New essays in logic and philosophy of science. College Publications, London, pp 603–615Google Scholar
  6. Cevolani G., Crupi V., Festa R. (2011) Verisimilitude and belief change for conjunctive theories. Erkenntnis 75(2): 183–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cevolani, G., & Festa, R. (2012). Features of verisimilitude. In preparation.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen L. J. (1980) What has science to do with truth?. Synthese 45(3): 489–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen L. J. (1987) Verisimilitude and legisimilitude. In: Kuipers T. A. F. (Ed.), What is closer-to-the-truth?. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 129–144Google Scholar
  10. Festa R. (2007) Verisimilitude, qualitative theories, and statistical inferences. In: Pihlström S., Raatikainen P., Sintonen M. (Ed.) Approaching truth: Essays in honour of Ilkka Niiniluoto.. College Publications, London, pp 143–178Google Scholar
  11. Festa R. (2012) On the verisimilitude of tendency hypotheses. In: Dieks D., Gonzalez W. J., Hartmann S., Stöltzner M., Weber M. (Eds.) Probabilities, laws, and structures, Vol. 3 of the philosophy of science in a European perspective.. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gemes K. (2007) Verisimilitude and content.. Synthese 154(2): 293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hintikka J. (1973) Logic, language-games and information. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuipers T. A. F. (1982) Approaching descriptive and theoretical truth. Erkenntnis 18: 343–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuipers T. A. F. (1987) A structuralist approach to truthlikeness. In: Kuipers T. A. F. (Ed.), What is closer-to-the-truth?. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 79–99Google Scholar
  16. Kuipers T. A. F. (1999) Abduction aiming at empirical progress or even truth approximation leading to a challenge for computational modelling. Foundations of Science 4: 307–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuipers T. A. F. (2000) From instrumentalism to constructive realism. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuipers T. A. F. (2011a) Basic and refined nomic truth approximation by evidence-guided belief revision in AGM-terms. Erkenntnis 75: 223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2011b). Dovetailing belief base revision with (basic) truth approximation. (to appear).Google Scholar
  20. Kuipers, T. A. F. (2012). Empirical progress and truth approximation revisited. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  21. Miller D. (1974) Popper’s qualitative theory of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25(2): 166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niiniluoto I. (1983) Verisimilitude vs legisimilitude. Studia Logica 17: 315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niiniluoto I. (1987) Truthlikeness. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Niiniluoto I. (1998) Verisimilitude: The third period. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49(1): 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Niiniluoto I. (1999) Belief revision and truthlikeness. In: Hansson B., Halldén S., Sahlin N.-E., Rabinowicz W. (Eds.) Internet Festschrift for Peter Gärdenfors. Department of Philosophy, Lund University, LundGoogle Scholar
  26. Niiniluoto I. (2003) Content and likeness definitions of truthlikeness. In: Hintikka J., Czarnecki T., Kijania-Placek K., Rojszczak A., Placek T. (Eds.) Philosophy and logic: In search of the Polish tradition. Essays in honor of Jan Woleński on the occasion of his 60th birthday.. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Niiniluoto I. (2010) Theory change, truthlikeness, and belief revision. In: Suárez M., Dorato M., Rèdei M. (Eds.) EPSA epistemology and methodology of science: Launch of the European philosophy of science association. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 189–199Google Scholar
  28. Niiniluoto I. (2011) Revising beliefs towards the truth. Erkenntnis 75(2): 165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oddie G. (1982) Cohen on verisimilitude and natural necessity. Synthese 51: 355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oddie G. (1986) Likeness to truth. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oddie, G. (2011). The content, consequence and likeness approaches to verisimilitude: Compatibility, trivialization, and underdetermination. Synthese. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9930-8.
  32. Popper K. R. (1963) Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Schurz G. (2011) Verisimilitude and belief revision. With a focus on the relevant element account. Erkenntnis 75(2): 203–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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: 415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tichý P. (1974) On Popper’s definitions of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25(2): 155–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tichý P. (1976) Verisimilitude redefined. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27: 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky A. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84: 327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zwart S. D. (2001) Refined verisimilitude. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zwart S., Franssen M. (2007) An impossibility theorem for verisimilitude. Synthese 158: 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustavo Cevolani
    • 1
  • Roberto Festa
    • 2
  • Theo A. F. Kuipers
    • 3
  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.University of TriesteTriesteItaly
  3. 3.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations