notes_6 - Notes for Week 6 of Confirmation 10/10/07 Branden...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Notes for Week 6 of Confirmation 10/10/07 Branden Fitelson 1 Hempels (Rather Odd) Reconstruction of Nicod Well discuss Hempels theory of confirmation in more depth next week. But, it was clearly inspired by some of Nicods earlier, inchoate remarks about instantial confirmation (which we saw last week), such as: Consider the formula or the law: A entails B . How can a particular proposition, [ i.e. ] a fact, affect its probability? If this fact consists of the presence of B in a case of A , it is favourable to the law . . . on the contrary, if it consists of the absence of B in a case of A , it is unfavourable to this law. While Nicod is not very clear on the logical details of his logical-probability-raising account of instantial confirmation, three aspects of Nicods conception of confirmation are apparent here: Instantial confirmation is a relation between singular and general propositions/statements (or, if you will, between facts and laws). Confirmation consists in positive probabilistic relevance , and disconfirmation consists in negative prob- abilistic relevance (where the salient probabilities are inductive or logical, as discussed last week). Universal generalizations are confirmed by their positive instances and disconfirmed by their negative instances (indeed, Nicod also endorses an asymmetry here, as we discussed last week). Hempel offers a precise, logical reconstruction of Nicods nave instantial account. There are several peculiar features of Hempels reconstruction of Nicod. I will focus presently on two such features. First, Hempels reconstruction is completely non-probabilistic (well return to that unfortunate decision on Hempels part later). Second, Hempels reconstruction takes the relata of Nicods confirmation relation to be objects and universal statements, as opposed to singular statements and universal statements. In modern (first-order) parlance, Hempels reconstruction of Nicod seems to be something like the following principle: (NC ) For all objects x (with names x ), and for all predicate expressions and : x confirms [ ( y)(y y) \ iff [ x & x \ is true, and x disconfirms [ ( y)(y y) \ iff [ x & x \ is true. As Hempel explains, (NC ) has some rather unfortunate consequences. For one thing, (NC ) leads to a theory of confirmation that violates the hypothetical equivalence condition : (EQC H ) If x confirms H , then x confirms anything logically equivalent to H . To see this, note that according to (NC ) both of the following obtain: a confirms ( y)(Fy Gy) , provided a is such that Fa & Ga ....
View Full Document

Page1 / 6

notes_6 - Notes for Week 6 of Confirmation 10/10/07 Branden...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online