近似真理vs经验充分性

Seungbae Park
{"title":"近似真理vs经验充分性","authors":"Seungbae Park","doi":"10.3280/EPIS2014-001007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Suppose that scientific realists believe that a successful theory is approximately true, and that constructive empiricists believe that it is empirically adequate. Whose belief is more likely to be false? The problem of underdetermination does not yield an answer to this question one way or the other, but the pessimistic induction does. The pessimistic induction, if correct, indicates that successful theories, both past and current, are empirically inadequate. It is arguable, however, that they are approximately true. Therefore, scientific realists overall take less epistemic risk than constructive empiricists.","PeriodicalId":50506,"journal":{"name":"Epistemologia","volume":"1 1","pages":"106-118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Approximate truth vs. empirical adequacy\",\"authors\":\"Seungbae Park\",\"doi\":\"10.3280/EPIS2014-001007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Suppose that scientific realists believe that a successful theory is approximately true, and that constructive empiricists believe that it is empirically adequate. Whose belief is more likely to be false? The problem of underdetermination does not yield an answer to this question one way or the other, but the pessimistic induction does. The pessimistic induction, if correct, indicates that successful theories, both past and current, are empirically inadequate. It is arguable, however, that they are approximately true. Therefore, scientific realists overall take less epistemic risk than constructive empiricists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epistemologia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"106-118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epistemologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3280/EPIS2014-001007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistemologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/EPIS2014-001007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

假设科学现实主义者相信一个成功的理论是近似正确的,而建构经验主义者相信它在经验上是充分的。谁的信念更可能是错误的?不确定性问题无论如何都不能给出这个问题的答案,但悲观归纳法可以。悲观的归纳,如果正确的话,表明成功的理论,无论是过去的还是现在的,都是经验不足的。然而,有争议的是,它们大致是正确的。因此,科学现实主义者总体上比建设性经验主义者承担更少的认知风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Approximate truth vs. empirical adequacy
Suppose that scientific realists believe that a successful theory is approximately true, and that constructive empiricists believe that it is empirically adequate. Whose belief is more likely to be false? The problem of underdetermination does not yield an answer to this question one way or the other, but the pessimistic induction does. The pessimistic induction, if correct, indicates that successful theories, both past and current, are empirically inadequate. It is arguable, however, that they are approximately true. Therefore, scientific realists overall take less epistemic risk than constructive empiricists.
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
Epistemologia
Epistemologia 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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