Abstract
In this chapter I shall show that (ii) (i.e., the theorems of “instance” and “qualified-instance confirmation” are unsatisfactory) is true. The third issue of the dispute between Popper and Carnap is Popper’s claim that Carnap’s definition of ‘degree of confirmation’ is inadequate because Carnap’s treatment of unrestricted universals is unsatisfactory. The defense of (ii) then, is a defense of Popper’s view of this part of the dispute. If the objections presented in sections four, five and seven are sound, the theorems of instance and qualified-instance confirmation must be rejected. That would mean Carnap has not offered a satisfactory treatment of unrestricted universals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1971 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michalos, A.C. (1971). Instance and Qualified-Instance Confirmation. In: The Popper-Carnap Controversy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3048-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3048-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-5127-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3048-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive