Scientific Testability Following the Assumption of Insufficient Knowledge and Resources
-
Miguel López-Astorga
Abstract
Carnap described ways to test scientific hypotheses. However, Carnap acknowledged that confirmation can never be definite. This left open the issue about the criteria to accept hypotheses. On the other hand, Wang has developed a computer program working without sufficient knowledge or resources, which makes the action of the program akin to the manner the human mind thinks. Wang’s program includes quantitative indicators that can be assigned to the frequency and the confidence of sentences. The present paper tries to link both approaches. The goal is to show how quantitative indicators such as those in Wang’s program can also be attributed to scientific hypotheses. Those indicators can help make decisions about the acceptance of the hypotheses. All of this allows proposing general characteristics for a possible algorithm to decide whether a particular hypothesis is admissible.
Funding source: PIA Ciencias Cognitivas, Centro de Investigacion en Ciencias Cognitivas, Instituto de Estudios Humanisticos, Universidad de Talca
Funding source: Proyecto Dialectica virtuosa de la educacion: De la fundamentacion filosofica y antropologica a implementaciones concretas, UNMdP
Award Identifier / Grant number: 15/I122 SAL127/19
References
Bunge, M. 1985. La investigación científica. Barcelona: Ariel.Search in Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1936. “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3 (4): 419–71. https://doi.org/10.1086/286432.Search in Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1937. “Testability and Meaning – Continued.” Philosophy of Science 4 (1): 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/286443.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., S. J. Handley, and D. E. Over. 2003. “Conditionals and Conditional Probability.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29 (2): 321–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.321.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 2023. Possibilities and Human Reasoning. Possibilities Studies & Society.10.1177/27538699231152731Search in Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., A. C. Quelhas, and C. Rasga. 2021. “The Mental Model Theory of Free Choice Permissions and Paradoxical Disjunctive Inferences.” Journal of Cognitive Psychology 33 (8): 951–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1967963.Search in Google Scholar
Khemlani, S., and P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2022. “Reasoning about Properties: A Computational Theory.” Psychological Review 129 (2): 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000240.Search in Google Scholar
López-Astorga, M. 2022. “Severe Acute Hepatitis in Children: An Analysis from Philosophy of Science Using the Concept of Reduction.” Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities 14 (2): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v14n2.30.Search in Google Scholar
López-Astorga, M., M. Ragni, and P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2022. “The Probability of Conditionals: A Review.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01938-5.Search in Google Scholar
Oaksford, M., D. E. Over, and N. Cruz. 2019. “Paradigms, possibilities, and probabilities: Comment to Hinterecker et al. (2016).” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 45 (2): 288–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000586.Search in Google Scholar
Pfeifer, N. 2013. “The New Psychology of Reasoning: A Mental Probability Logical Perspective.” Thinking & Reasoning 19: 329–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.838189.Search in Google Scholar
Popper, K. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and D. Kahnemann. 1983. “Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgement.” Psychological Review 90 (4): 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, P. 2011. “The Assumptions on Knowledge and Resources of Rationality.” International Journal of Machine Consciousness 3 (1): 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000686.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, P. 2013. Non-Axiomatic Logic: A Model of Intelligent Reasoning. Singapore: World Scientific.10.1142/8665Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- A Brief Note from the Editors
- Articles
- Philosophy as Passion for Knowledge: What Kind of History of Philosophy for the 21st Century?
- Scientific Testability Following the Assumption of Insufficient Knowledge and Resources
- Do Logical Aliens Think? Frege’s Agent-Relative View of Logic’s Constitutive Role for Thinking
- Book Reviews
- Niklas Forsberg: Lectures on a Philosophy Less Ordinary: Language and Morality in J. L. Austin’s Philosophy
- Ditte Marie Munch-Jurisic: Perpetrator Disgust. The Moral Limits of Gut Feelings
- Axel Hutter: Narrative Ontology
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- A Brief Note from the Editors
- Articles
- Philosophy as Passion for Knowledge: What Kind of History of Philosophy for the 21st Century?
- Scientific Testability Following the Assumption of Insufficient Knowledge and Resources
- Do Logical Aliens Think? Frege’s Agent-Relative View of Logic’s Constitutive Role for Thinking
- Book Reviews
- Niklas Forsberg: Lectures on a Philosophy Less Ordinary: Language and Morality in J. L. Austin’s Philosophy
- Ditte Marie Munch-Jurisic: Perpetrator Disgust. The Moral Limits of Gut Feelings
- Axel Hutter: Narrative Ontology
