Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why a tale twice told is more likely to take hold

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. L. Jonathan Cohen, ‘Bayesianism versus Baconianism in the Evaluation of Medical Diagnoses’, Brit. J. for the Philosophy of Science 1980, p. 50.

  2. ‘What is necessary for testimonial corroboration?’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1981, p. 163.

  3. In Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics, (D. Reidel, 1977) ed. R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka. p. 185.

  4. Ibid. p. 189.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Caldwell Hall 009 A, 27514, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    George N. Schlesinger

Authors
  1. George N. Schlesinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schlesinger, G.N. Why a tale twice told is more likely to take hold. Philosophical Studies 54, 141–152 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00354182

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00354182

Search

Navigation