
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 1989
Pages: 115-152
Series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
ISBN (Hardback): 9789401075466
Full citation:
, "Consilience and natural kind reasoning", in: An intimate relation, Berlin, Springer, 1989


Consilience and natural kind reasoning
pp. 115-152
in: James BROWN, Jürgen Mittelstrass (eds), An intimate relation, Berlin, Springer, 1989Abstract
In his ongoing debate with Clark Glymour and other scientific realists, Bas van Fraassen (e.g. 1983 pp. 165–168, 1985 p. 247 pp. 280–281 pp. 294–295) has often appealed to a widely accepted doctrine that strength and security are conflicting virtues which must be traded off one against the other. In limiting his commitment to only the empirical adequacy of a theory van Fraassen claims to be simply more cautious than his realist opponents. Certainly, as he delights in pointing out, a theory T cannot be more probable than its empirical consequences E. For Probability is monotone with respect to entailment, so P(T) ≤ P(E) if T entails E. If security is measured by any function which, like probability, is monotone with entailment, then it would seem that the kind of trade-off between strength and security van Fraassen appeals to is unavoidable.1
Cited authors
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 1989
Pages: 115-152
Series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
ISBN (Hardback): 9789401075466
Full citation:
, "Consilience and natural kind reasoning", in: An intimate relation, Berlin, Springer, 1989