Confirmation Logic and Its Applications

  • Chao-Tien Lin
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 141)


In this article ‘confirmation logic’ is first defined as ‘the underlying logic of any adequate confirmation theory’ and a confirmation theory is adequate if it satisfies the four conditions: (i) it can solve the paradoxes of confirmation as well as (ii) the Goodman paradox, (iii) the Equivalence Condition holds in it, (iv) the standard axiom system of probability can be derived from it if a definition of ‘degree of confirmation’ as ‘probability’ is defined in it.

It follows that Hempel’s theory of confirmation is not an adequate confirmation theory and its underlying logic, i.e., the classical 2-valucd quantificational logic is not a ‘confirmation logic’. The main business of this article is thus to construct a non-classical logic, in fact, a 3-valued quantificational logic (with a complete semantics) which is a ‘confirmation logic’.

Finally, the newly constructed confirmation logic is applied to solve a number of logical and philosophical puzzles and problems, among them: the Aristotelian problem of future contingents, the paradoxes of implication, the paradox of the existence of non-beings, the Kripkc paradox, and some other well-known problems.


Quantificational Logic Truth Table Intuitionistic Logic Underlying Logic Individual Constant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aristotle: De Interpretatione.Google Scholar
  2. Frege, G.: 1966, ‘On sense and reference’, in Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege ,P. Geach and M. Black (eds.), Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Goodman, N.: 1960, ‘Positionality and pictures’, Philosophical Review 69. 523–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodman, N.: 1973, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast ,3rd ed.Google Scholar
  5. Haack, S.: 1973, Deviant Logic ,London, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hempel, Carl G.: 1965b, Aspects of Scientific Explanation ,N.Y., the Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Heyting, A.: 1966, Intuitionism ,Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Kripke, S.: 1971, ‘Identity and necessity’, in Philosophy as It Is ,T. Honderich and M. Burnyeat (eds.).Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, C. I. and Langford, C. H.: 1959, Symbolic Logic ,London, Dover.Google Scholar
  10. Lin, C. T.: 1990, Confirmation Theory, Confirmation Logic and Some Applications ,Taipei, the Buffalo Book Co.Google Scholar
  11. Mates, B.: 1972, Elementary Logic ,London, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  12. Lukasiewicz, J.: 1920, ‘On three-valued logic’, in Jan Lukasiewicz: Selected Works ,L. Borkowski (ed.).Google Scholar
  13. Post, E. L.: 1921, ‘Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions’, in American Journal of Mathematics 43, 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Salmon, W.: 1963, ‘On vindicating induction’, Philosophy of Science 30, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scheffler, I.: 1963, The Anatomy of Inquiry: Philosophical Studies of the Theory of Science.Google Scholar
  16. Strawson, P. F.: 1950, ‘On referring’, Mind 59, 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Taylor, R.: 1962, ‘Fatalism’, Philosophical Review 71, 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Fraassen, B. C: 1980, The Scientific Image ,Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chao-Tien Lin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations