bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Confirmation Theory, Order, and Periodicity
Authors: Achinstein Peter 
Published: November 2002

This paper examines problems of order and periodicity which arise when the attempt is made to define a confirmation function for a language containing elementary number theory as applied to a universe in which the individuals are considered to be arranged in some fixed order. Certain plausible conditions of adequacy are stated for such a confirmation function. By the construction of certain types of predicates, it is proved, however, that these conditions of adequacy are violated by any confirmation function defined for the type of language in question.Various possible solutions to these difficulties are explored and found tobe inadequate. In particular, a proposal which stems from the suggestion to restrict a fundamental principle of confirmation to hypotheses containing only non-positional predicates is cited. This proposal, however, is shown to prevent confirmation functions from taking periodicities into account, and so is deemed unsatisfactory. A general theorem is proved to the effect that if non-positional predicates are taken to satisfy the conditions of adequacy which have been formulated, then no periodicity predicates whatsoever (i.e., predicates used in formulating hypotheses which foretell periodicities) can be subject to these conditions, on pain of contradiction. Yet it seems that periodicity predicates must be subject to these conditions of adequacy if a confirmation function is to recognize periodic occurrences. Thus, an impasse seems to be reached.In the final sections we consider the beginnings of one possible solution to these difficulties. Our proposal involves treating sets of individuals, rather than individuals themselves, as instances, of an hypothesis which predicts a periodicity. On this basis we formulate new conditions of adequacy which are free from the previous difficulties and which will permit a confirmation function that satisfies them to take periodicities into account.
The Law of Inertia: A Philosopher's Touchstone
Authors: Hanson Norwood Russell 
Published: November 2002

The conceptual excitement of science often seems geared only to work in contemporary physics. Thus, philosophers regularly discuss current cosmology, relativity, or the foundations of microphysics. In these areas one's philosophy is stretched and strained far beyond what our ancestors might have anticipated. Historians of science have also focused attention on past events by remarking their analogies and similarities with perplexities in physics today.But there are statements, hypotheses and theories of the past which are rewarding in themselves, without having to be referred to the agonies which now confound quantum theory and cosmology. Specifically, the First Law of Motion—the “Law of Inertia”—this has everything a logician of science could look for. Understanding the complexities and perplexities of this fundamental mechanical statement is in itself to gain insight into what theoretical physics in general really is. With this in view a study of the law is undertaken.
Performance, Purpose, and Permission
Authors: Martin R. M. 
Published: November 2002

In this paper we attempt to formulate logical foundations for a theory of actions or performance. Human beings act in various ways, and their actions are intimately interrelated with their use of language. But precisely how actions and the use of language are interrelated is not very clear. One of the reasons is perhaps that we have no precise vocabulary in terms of which such interrelations may be handled. There is need for developing a systematic theory in which different kinds of actions may be discussed, contrasted, and compared. Then the various interrelations between actions and linguistic usage may perhaps be discussed rather more carefully and thoroughly than heretofore.Although much important preliminary work has been done in the analysis of actions, no one it seems has attempted to develop a strict logical theory for such analysis. A few tentative and programmatic steps were taken in the author's Toward a Systematic Pragmatics.1 Let us attempt here to improve those and take a few more. Any first attempts of this kind are of course fraught with difficulties. There inevitably will be some oversimplification or some overelaboration here or there. Ultimately of course we are interested in interrelating performance with various notions from syntax, semantics, and quantitative pragmatics.2 But this is not easy and only a few tentative suggestions toward such a development can be given here.In § 1 the distinction between action-kinds and action-events is drawn, and the character of the primitive or primitives needed for the theory of performance is discussed. In § 2 some further notions are then defined. Certain Rules of Performance are suggested in § 3. In § 4 there is discussion of the somewhat tenuous notion of acceptance as a basis for action. In § 5 the fundamental notions required for Parsons and Shils’ theory of social action is discussed briefly. In § 6 we attempt to define the two basic notions required in Leonard's recent papers concerning authorship and purpose. Finally, in § 7, the theory of performance is interrelated with von Wright's deontic logic, in which such notions as permission and obligation are considered.
Measurements and Quantum States: Part II
Authors: Margenau Henry 
Published: November 2002

This is the second, mathematically more detailed part of a paper consisting of two articles, the first having appeared in the immediately preceding issue of this Journal∗. It shows that a measurement converts a pure case into a mixture with reducible probabilities. The measurement as such permits no inference whatever as to the state of the physical system subjected to measurement after the measurement has been performed. But because the probabilities after the act are classical and therefore reducible, it is often possible to adjust them so that Von Neumann's projection postulate is true.Among the more specific features dealt with in Part II is the occurrence of negative joint probabilities for the measurement of non-commuting operators in certain (not all!) quantum states. The general conclusions reached are stated at the end of the article.
Meaning and Action
Authors: Brodbeck May 
Published: November 2002

This paper examines the current variant of the view that meaningful human actions are not amenable to causal, scientific explanation. Rather, the view examined holds that, understanding the language, we understand the meaning of other people's overt acts by analyzing the concepts appropriately applied to the situation, tracing their logical connections with other mentalistic concepts. A matter of conceptual analysis, our understanding of man is held to be a priori and necessary rather than, as with the natural sciences, a posteriori and contingent.Various uses of ‘concept’, ‘meaning’, and ‘understanding’ are here distinguished. It is then shown, first, how the objectivist can in principle account for intentionality and for “rule-governed” behavior, that is, for the presence and efficacy of mind in the world. Secondly, current criticisms of the objectivist program are examined. An uncritical use of ‘concept’ and of ‘rule’, as well as a fusion of various uses of ‘meaning’ and ‘understanding’, gives those criticisms a specious plausibility that does not withstand close analysis. It is concluded that the objectivist program has not been shown to be untenable.
Discussion: The Epistemology of Causality from the Point of View of Evolutionary Biology
Authors: Barr H. J. 
Published: November 2002

In 1958 I set down some thoughts that arose from an attempt to consider epistemological problems on the assumptions that (1) The biology of the human nervous system is relevant to epistemology and (2) The human nervous system, like every other object of biological investigation, is a product of evolution by natural selection. These thoughts lay more or less neglected until they were brought stunningly to mind by Professor George Gaylord Simpson's [1] recent paper on “Biology and the Nature of Science”. In that paper Professor Simpson writes:
“Still another consideration seems to me the most interesting of all, and yet I have never seen it clearly expressed elsewhere. It is, in a sense a validation of the ‘animal faith’ given by Russell (after Santayana) … as sole basis for assuming that we really can obtain knowledge of the outer world. The fact is that man originated by a slow process of evolution guided by natural selection. At every stage in this long progression our ancestors necessarily had adaptive reactions to the world around them. As behavior and sense organs became more complex, perception of sensations from those organs obviously maintained a realistic relationship to the environment. To put it crudely but graphically, the monkey who did not have a realistic perception of the tree branch he jumped for was soon a dead monkey-and therefore did not become one of our ancestors. Our perceptions do give true, even though not complete, representations of the outer world because that was and is a biological necessity.”
Explanation Sketches
Authors: Newman Fred 
Published: November 2002

According to Hempel, historians do not offer full-blown explanations. Rather, they typically present explanation-sketches which need filling out. On his account,
… Such a sketch consists of a more or less vague indication of the laws and initial conditions considered as relevant, and it needs ‘filling out’ in order to turn into a full fledged explanation. This filling out requires further empirical research for which the sketch suggests the direction …
On Failing to Vindicate Induction
Authors: Skyrms Brian 
Published: November 2002

The structure of Reichenbach's pragmatic vindication of induction is analysed in detail. The argument is seen to proceed in two stages, the first being a pragmatic justification of the frequency interpretation of probability which is taken as a license for considering the aim of induction to be the discovery of limiting relative frequencies, and the second being the pragmatic justification of induction itself. Both justifications are found to contain flaws, and the arguments used to support Reichenbach's definition of the aim of induction presuppose the availability of a type of predicate which generates paradoxes closely related to Goodman's “grue-bleen” paradox.Next, Salmon's “Criterion of Linguistic Invariance” is evaluated as a canon of inductive logic, which singles out the “straight rule” from an infinite class of convergent inductive rules. Upon close examination, its credentials are seen to be unimpressive. In connection with Salmon's work on linguistic invariance, we take a closer look at the impact of the Goodman paradox on probability estimator rules like Reichenbach's “straight rule.” We find that its undesirable consequences for such systems of inductive logic cannot be escaped by Salmon's solution, or indeed by any solution whose motivating idea is to rule “queer” predicates out of court.Finally, the discussion of the Goodman paradox leads us to a modest methodological proposal for systems of inductive logic which incorperate probability estimator rules of the type at issue.
Nelson Goodman's Entrenchment Theory
Authors: Kahane Howard 
Published: November 2002

One of the fundamental problems in the fields of inductive logic and the philosophy of science is the one concerning inferences or projections containing so-called “grue-like” or “pathological” predicates. This problem was first put into sharp focus by Nelson Goodman, who called it the “new riddle of induction.”Goodman has shown that the few attempts by others to solve this problem (which appear in the literature) are not adequate. However, very little has been written concerning Goodman's own attempt to solve the problem, namely his theory of entrenchment. The purpose of this article is to show that Goodman's entrenchment theory also is inadequate as a solution to the new riddle of induction. I shall try to do this by presenting two kinds of counterexamples to the entrenchment theory: one kind illustrating a general objection to the theory as a whole ; the other kind, specific objections to particular (vital) parts of the theory.
Extensionality and Randomness in Probability Sequences
Authors: Cannavo S. 
Published: November 2002

The charge that the limit-frequency theory of probability is inconsistent due to incompatibility between the required features of randomness and limit convergence is inapplicable when probability sequences are taken to be empirically (i.e., extensionally) generated, as they must be on a strictly empirical conception of probability.All past attempts to meet this charge by formulating constructive definitions of randomness that would still allow for a demonstrable limit-convergence have, in their exclusive concern with logically (i.e., intensionally) prescribed sequences, left the logic of extensional classes essentially untouched. In the light of a strict differentiation between intensional and extensional classes a generalized approach is possible under which several closely connected senses of randomness, i.e., the formal, material, restricted and unrestricted senses may be easily distinguished and related to the notion of relevance.
Cosmological Horizons
Authors: Swinburne R. G. 
Published: November 2002

Horizons are frontiers between things observable and things unobservable. Even if such horizons exist we may extrapolate from observable to non-observable regions of the universe by
(a)using the laws of physics which tell us how a presently observable galaxy will evolve even when we can no longer observe it, and(b)using the cosmological principle, which tells us that the physical situation beyond the horizon is by and large the same as the physical situation within the horizon.It would be paradoxical to define the universe in terms of objects or events within a horizon because it is only in virtue of information about objects and events outside the horizon that we have reason to believe that the horizon exists.
Induction and Objectivity
Authors: Clendinnen F. John 
Published: November 2002

This paper is an attempt at a vindication of induction. The point of departure is that induction requires a justification and that the only kind of justification possible is a vindication. However traditional vindications of induction have rested on unjustified assumptions about the aim of induction. This vindication takes the end pursued in induction simply to be correct prediction. It is argued that induction is the only reasonable way of pursuing this end because induction is the only objective method of predicting. While objectivity is not a necessary condition for successful predicting, it is a sufficient condition for the possession of a property that is, in turn, a necessary condition for correct predicting; and further there could be no reason to expect any non-objective method to possess this necessary condition for success.Induction is the only objective method of predicting for it alone uses facts which must be identified by any predicting method based on rules; and it alone uses these facts according to a relationship that must hold between facts and any meaningful empirical statement. Any alternative to induction must assume that the factual regularities that have been detected will alter in the future and the way they are expected to alter must be arbitrary. It is further claimed that this vindication is proof against the criticisms that have been advanced against practicalist justifications of induction.
Nomological Necessity and the Paradoxes of Confirmation
Authors: Skyrms Brian 
Published: November 2002

“What might have been is an abstraction Remaining a perpetual possibility Only in the world of speculation.”T. S. EliotBurnt NortonSome of the concerns which motivate attempts to provide a philosophical reduction of nomological necessity are briefly introduced in I. In II, Hempel's treatment of the paradoxes is contrasted with a position which holds that nomological necessity is a pragmatic dimension of laws of nature, and that this pragmatic dimension is of such a type that it prevents laws of nature from contraposing. Such a position is, however, untenable unless (i) the sense of ‘pragmatics’ at issue is specified, and the possibility of pragmatic differences resulting in differences in confirmation is defended, and (ii) a relevant pragmatic difference between contrapositives is indicated. III attempts to satisfy condition (i) by developing a new sense of pure pragmatics and argues that some remarks by Goodman and Scheffler together with work on the logic of explanation by Dr. Rescher and myself suggest that nomological contrapositives are not pragmatically equivalent (i.e. substitutable salva veritate in the pure pragmatics of an ideal scientific language). If such is the case, condition (ii) is also satisfied.
Physicalism, the Identity Theory, and the Doctrine of Emergence
Authors: Kekes John 
Published: November 2002

I Physicalism, and the weak identity theory deny, while physicalism2 and the radical identity theory assert, that raw feels can be accomodated in a purely physicalistic framework.II A way of interpreting the claim of physicalism1 is that raw feels are emergents.III The doctrine of emergence asserts that: (i) there are different levels of existence, (ii) these levels of existence are distinguishable on the basis of the behaviour of entities of that level, and (iii) an adequate scientific explanation of a lower level is inadequate for a higher level.IV The criteria of emergence are novelty and a priori unpredictability.V Either qualities or laws or both may be regarded as emergents.VI If the alleged impossibility of explaining higher level phenomena on the basis of explanation adequate for lower level phenomena is logical, then the impossibility is either trivial or it implies indeterminism.Consideration of theories of emergence:
VII Semantic emergence. On this view emergence is theory-bound, analogous to indefinability or indemonstrability.VIII Methodological emergence. On this view what we regard as emergents depends on the theory we construct.IX Nomological emergence. On this view emergence is an empirical problem.Conclusion: if there are emergents, physicalism2 and the radical identity theory probably have to be abandoned. However, unless actual examples of emergents are produced both theories hold. The logical possibility of falsification is not an objection against physicalism2 and the radical identity theory; it is one of their merits.
Conventionality in Distant Simultaneity
Authors: Ellis Brian , Bowman Peter 
Published: November 2002

In his original paper of 1905, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, Einstein described a procedure for synchronizing distant clocks at rest in any inertial system K. Clocks thus synchronized may be said to be in standard signal synchrony in K. It has often been claimed that there are no logical or physical reasons for preferring standard signal synchronizations to any of a range of possible non-standard ones. In this paper, the range of consistent non-standard signal synchronizations, first for any one inertial system, and second for any set of such systems, is investigated, and it is shown that the requirement of consistency leaves much less room for choice than is commonly supposed. Nevertheless consistent non-standard signal synchronizations appear to be possible. However, it is also shown that good physical reasons for preferring standard signal synchronizations exist, if the Special Theory of Relativity yields correct predictions.The thesis of the conventionality of distant simultaneity espoused particularly by Reichenbach and Grünbaum is thus either trivialized or refuted.
Extensive Measurement in Semiorders
Authors: Krantz David H. 
Published: November 2002

In both axiomatic theories and the practice of extensive measurement, it is assumed that a series of replicas of any given object can be found. The replicas give rise to a standard series, the “multiples” of the given object. The numerical value assigned to any object is determined, approximately, by comparisons with members of a suitable standard series.This prescription introduces unspecified errors, if the comparison process is somewhat insensitive, so that “replicas” are not really equivalent. In this paper, it is assumed that the comparison process leads only to a semiorder, which allows for such insensitivity. It is shown that, nevertheless, extensive measurement can be carried out, provided that a certain set of (plausible) axioms is valid. Approximate measures, and their limits of error, can be derived from finite sets of semiorder observations. These approximate measures converge to ratio-scale exact measurement.
Goodman's Paradox and Rules of Acceptance
Authors: Williams Peter M. 
Published: November 2002

The purpose of this note is to examine the claim made by Howard Smokler that “Goodman's paradox should be considered as an independent argument against a conception of inductive logic which makes use of rules of acceptance” ([4], p. 76).Smokler's claim arises from his treatment of Goodman's paradox in the form given it by Israel Scheffler ([2]). Schefflerhas discussed this paradox primarily in the context of a methodology of induction which views inductive rules as rules of acceptance permitting one to assert detached conclusions. The inductive rule considered by Scheffler is described as follows:
What leads us to make one particular prediction rather than its opposite is not its deducibility froIII evidence but rather its congruence with a generalization thoroughly in accord with all such evidence, and the correlative disconfirmation of the contrary generalization by the same evidence. (I shall refer to this hereafter as the “generalization formula”) ([2], p. 177).