拉卡托斯对卡纳普归纳逻辑的批评是错误的

Q1 Mathematics
Teddy Groves
{"title":"拉卡托斯对卡纳普归纳逻辑的批评是错误的","authors":"Teddy Groves","doi":"10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In <span>[39]</span>, Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54881,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Logic","volume":"14 ","pages":"Pages 3-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lakatos's criticism of Carnapian inductive logic was mistaken\",\"authors\":\"Teddy Groves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In <span>[39]</span>, Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Logic\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 3-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157086831500083X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157086831500083X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在[39]中,Imre Lakatos有影响力地认为Carnapian归纳逻辑是一个退化的研究程序。本文认为拉卡托斯的批评是错误的,根据拉卡托斯自己的标准,卡纳普归纳逻辑是进步的,而不是退化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lakatos's criticism of Carnapian inductive logic was mistaken

In [39], Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Applied Logic
Journal of Applied Logic COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS
CiteScore
1.13
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cessation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信