Truthlikeness for hypotheses expressed in terms of n quantitative variables

A qualitative theory of truthlikeness, based on a family of quantitative measures, is developed for hypotheses that are concerned with the values of a finite number of real-valued quantities. Representing hypotheses by subsets of ⁿ, I first show that a straightforward application of the basic ideas of the similarity approach to truthlikeness does not work out for hypotheses with zero n-dimensional Lebesgue measure. However, it is easy to give a counterpart for the average measure preferred by Pavel Tichý and Graham Oddie in terms of Hausdorff measures. The task of finding analogies of the min-sum-measure preferred by Ilkka Niiniluoto is more interesting. I present and discuss analogies of two different types for this measure.     

A Critique of the Constitutive Role of Truthlikeness in the Similarity Approach

The similarity approach stands as a significant attempt to defend scientific realism from the attack of the pessimistic meta-induction. The strategy behind the similarity approach is to shift from an absolute notion of truth to the more flexible one of truthlikeness. Nonetheless, some authors are not satisfied with this attempt to defend realism and find that the notion of truthlikeness is not fully convincing. The aim of this paper is to analyze and understand the reasons of this dissatisfaction. Our thesis is that the dissatisfaction with the notion of truthlikeness concerns the double role that this notion plays within the similarity approach: This notion plays both a regulative role in the conception of theories and a constitutive one in their selection.     

Revising Beliefs Towards the Truth

Belief revision (BR) and truthlikeness (TL) emerged independently as two research programmes in formal methodology in the 1970s. A natural way of connecting BR and TL is to ask under what conditions the revision of a belief system by new input information leads the system towards the truth. It turns out that, for the AGM model of belief revision, the only safe case is the expansion of true beliefs by true input, but this is not very interesting or realistic as a model of theory change in science. The new accounts of non-prioritized belief revision do not seem more promising in this respect, and the alternative BR account of updating by imaging leads to other problems. Still, positive results about increasing truthlikeness by belief revision may be sought by restricting attention to special kinds of theories. Another approach is to link truthlikeness to epistemic matters by an estimation function which calculates expected degrees of truthlikeness relative to evidence. Then we can study how the expected truthlikeness of a theory changes when probabilities are revised by conditionalization or imaging. Again, we can ask under what conditions such changes lead our best theories towards the truth.     

Doing Ontology and Doing Justice: What Feminist Philosophy Can Teach Us About Meta-Metaphysics

Abstract

Feminist philosophy has recently become recognised as a self-standing philosophical sub-discipline. Still, metaphysics has remained largely dismissive of feminist insights. Here I make the case for the value of feminist insights in metaphysics: taking them seriously makes a difference to our ontological theory choice and feminist philosophy can provide helpful methodological tools to regiment ontological theories. My examination goes as follows. Contemporary ontology is not done via conceptual analysis, but via quasi-scientific means. This takes different ontological positions to be competing hypotheses about reality’s fundamental structure that are then assessed with a loose battery of criteria for theory choice. Such criteria make up the constitutive values of ontology (e.g. providing a unified, coherent, non-circular, simple, parsimonious total theory). These values are distinguished from contextual values of a practice: the political and moral values embedded in the social context of inquiry. Although we may be frank about some meta-metaphysical value commitments, bringing in feminist contextual values is viewed as an unacceptable move when thinking about ontological theory choice. This paper then asks: is this move unacceptable? I think not and I aim to motivate this methodological insight here by examining recent work on grounding.     

Truthlikeness and the Lottery Paradox via the Preface Paradox

In a 2017 AJP paper, Cevolani and Schurz (C&S) propose a novel solution to the Preface Paradox that appeals to the notion of expected truthlikeness. This discussion note extends and analyses their approach by applying it to the related Lottery Paradox.     

In Defense of the Notion of Truthlikeness

The notion of truthlikeness (verisimilitude, approximate truth), coined by Karl Popper, has very much fallen into oblivion, but the paper defends it. It can be regarded in two different ways. Either as a notion that is meaningful only if some formal measure of degree of truthlikeness can be constructed; or as a merely non-formal comparative notion that nonetheless has important functions to fulfill. It is the latter notion that is defended; it is claimed that such a notion is needed for both a reasonable backward-looking and a reasonable forward-looking view of science. On the one hand, it is needed in order to make sense of the history of science as containing a development; on the other, it is needed in order to understand present-day sciences as containing knowledge-seeking activities. The defense of truthlikeness requires also a defense of two other notions: quasi-comparisons and regulative ideas, which is supplied in this paper as well.     

The application of psychodynamic methods within the framework of behavior therapy

Behavior Modification has gone a long way since its start as a reaction to the traditional psychiatric and psychotherapeutic methods. It is no longer a monolithic term, as it includes a variety of theoretical and conceptual positions, different methodological approaches and many therapeutic techniques. It is the aim of this paper to demonstrate that due to the changes behaviorism has gone through, it is no longer an alien discipline to psychoanalysis as it has been in the early days of the movement. Therefore, an integration between the two approaches is currently possible in a relatively smooth and conflict- free manner. There are several varieties of integration between the two approaches. The suggested combination is an elaboration of Kaplan's method, which is behaviorally-oriented, but utilizes psychoanalytic concepts and techniques pragmatically at times when the behavioristic treatment program has come to a stalemate because of the patient's resistances. This approach seems to be especially coherent and efficient;it has proven to be successful in avoiding the pitfalls which were the cause of skepticism with respect to the integration of the two types of treatment — behavior therapy and psychodynamic therapy. Vignettes from behavioral-cognitive treatment of test anxiety and combat reaction (post-traumatic stress disorder) will be presented in order to demonstrate the suggested method.     

Probability,Approximate Truth,and Truthlikeness: More Ways out of the Preface Paradox

The so-called Preface Paradox seems to show that one can rationally believe two logically incompatible propositions. We address this puzzle, relying on the notions of truthlikeness and approximate truth as studied within the post-Popperian research programme on verisimilitude. In particular, we show that adequately combining probability, approximate truth, and truthlikeness leads to an explanation of how rational belief is possible in the face of the Preface Paradox. We argue that our account is superior to other solutions of the paradox, including a recent one advanced by Hannes Leitgeb (Analysis 74.1).     

Conducting a Multi Family Member Interview Study

Family researchers have long recognized the utility of incorporating interview data from multiple family members. Yet, relatively few contemporary scholars utilize such an approach due to methodological underdevelopment. This article contributes to family scholarship by providing a roadmap for developing and executing in‐depth interview studies that include more than one family member. Specifically, it outlines the epistemological frames that most commonly underlie this approach, illustrates thematic research questions that it best addresses, and critically reviews the best methodological practices of conducting research with this approach. The three most common approaches are addressed in depth: separate interviews with each family member, dyadic or group interviews with multiple family members, and a combined approach that uses separate and dyadic or group interviews. This article speaks to family scholars who are at the beginning stages of their research project but are unsure of the best qualitative approach to answer a given research question.     

The content, consequence and likeness approaches to verisimilitude: compatibility, trivialization, and underdetermination

Theories of verisimilitude have routinely been classified into two rival camps—the content approach and the likeness approach—and these appear to be motivated by very different sets of data and principles. The question thus naturally arises as to whether these approaches can be fruitfully combined. Recently Zwart and Franssen (Synthese 158(1):75–92, 2007) have offered precise analyses of the content and likeness approaches, and shown that given these analyses any attempt to meld content and likeness orderings violates some basic desiderata. Unfortunately their characterizations of the approaches do not embrace the paradigm examples of those approaches. I offer somewhat different characterizations of these two approaches, as well as of the consequence approach (Schurz and Weingartner (Synthese 172(3):415–436, 2010) which happily embrace their respective paradigms. Finally I prove that the three approaches are indeed compatible, but only just, and that the cost of combining them is too high. Any account which combines the strictures of what I call the strong likeness approach with the demands of either the content or the consequence approach suffers from precisely the same defect as Popper’s—namely, it entails the trivialization of truthlikeness. The downside of eschewing the strong likeness constraints and embracing the content constraints alone is the underdetermination of the concept of truthlikeness.     

Beauty, A Road To The Truth

In this article I give a naturalistic-cum-formal analysis of therelation between beauty, empirical success, and truth. The analysis is based on the onehand on a hypothetical variant of the so-called `mere-exposure effect' which has been more orless established in experimental psychology regarding exposure-affect relationshipsin general and aesthetic appreciation in particular (Zajonc 1968; Temme 1983; Bornstein 1989;Ye 2000). On the other hand it is based on the formal theory of truthlikeness andtruth approximation as presented in my From Instrumentalism to Constructive Realism (2000).The analysis supports the findings of James McAllister in his beautifulBeauty and Revolution in Science (1996), by explaining and justifying them.First, scientists are essentially right in regarding aesthetic criteria useful for empiricalprogress and even for truth approximation, provided they conceive of them as less hard thanempirical criteria. Second, the aesthetic criteria of the time, the `aesthetic canon', maywell be based on `aesthetic induction' regarding nonempirical features of paradigms of successfultheories which scientists have come to appreciate as beautiful. Third, aestheticcriteria can play a crucial, schismatic role in scientific revolutions. Since they may well be wrong, they may, in the hands of aesthetic conservatives, retard empirical progress and hence truth approximation, but this does not happen in the hands of aesthetically flexible, `revolutionary' scientists. We may find totallyopposite things beautiful: a simplemathematical principle as well as a series of unrepeatable complex contingencies. It is a matter of psychology.(Stephen Jay Gould, translated passage from (Kayzer 2000, 30)).     

The concept of development in vocational theory and intervention

One of the major problems in the vocational literature is the absence of theoretical formulations which deal with development in more than a superficial manner. Specific problems are that (1) key constructs are adapted from developmental theory without proper attention to the conceptual, empirical, and methodological problems involved; (2) little recognition has been accorded to significant changes in developmental theory during the past 15 years, changes which stress the multidimensional, plastic, contextual, and life-span features of development; (3) there is a paucity of adequately designed, contextually sensitive, longitudinal research; and (4) well-established empirical findings of developmental research have been misrepresented or ignored by vocational researchers. It is proposed that a theory of life-span vocational role development must meet the conceptual and methodological requirements of a developmental approach, that it must contain a contextual perspective, and that it must be relational in the sense that it provides for the examination of the “goodness of fit” between individual and contextual developments. The consequences of this viewpoint for vocational intervention are described as a more pronounced focus on events, processes, and life periods which are identified as antecedents of major vocational decisions. Finally, it is observed that vocational intervention should be viewed as a succession of procedures designed to assist the individual, throughout his/her life, to adapt vocational functioning to changing personal situations as well as to changing economic and contextual circumstances.     

Introspective physicalism as an approach to the science of consciousness

Most 'theories of consciousness' are based on vague speculations about the properties of conscious experience. We aim to provide a more solid basis for a science of consciousness. We argue that a theory of consciousness should provide an account of the very processes that allow us to acquire and use information about our own mental states - the processes underlying introspection. This can be achieved through the construction of information-processing models that can account for 'Type-C' processes. Type-C processes can be specified experimentally by identifying paradigms in which awareness of the stimulus is necessary for an intentional action. The Shallice (1988b) framework is put forward as providing an initial account of Type-C processes, which can relate perceptual consciousness to consciously performed actions. Further, we suggest that this framework may be refined through the investigation of the functions of prefrontal cortex. The formulation of our approach requires us to consider fundamental conceptual and methodological issues associated with consciousness. The most significant of these issues concerns the scientific use of introspective evidence. We outline and justify a conservative methodological approach to the use of introspective evidence, with attention to the difficulties historically associated with its use in psychology.     

Panning for the gold in health research: Incorporating studies’ methodological quality in meta-analysis

Background: Systematic reviews now routinely assess methodological quality to gauge the validity of the included studies and of the synthesis as a whole. Although trends from higher quality studies should be clearer, it is uncertain how often meta-analyses incorporate methodological quality in models of study results either as predictors, or, more interestingly, in interactions with theoretical moderators.

Objective and methods: We survey 200 meta-analyses in three health promotion domains to examine when and how meta-analyses incorporate methodological quality.

Results: Although methodological quality assessments commonly appear in contemporary meta-analyses (usually as scales), they are rarely incorporated in analyses, and still more rarely analysed in interaction with theoretical determinants of the success of health promotions. The few meta-analyses (2.5%) that did include such an interaction analysis showed that moderator results remained significant in higher quality studies or were present only among higher quality studies. We describe how to model quality interactively with theoretically derived moderators and discuss strengths and weaknesses of this approach and in relation to current meta-analytic practice.

Conclusions: In large literatures exhibiting heterogeneous effects, meta-analyses can incorporate methodological quality and generate conclusions that enable greater confidence not only about the substantive phenomenon but also about the role that methodological quality itself plays.     

Notes on Psychoanalysis,Psychotherapy and Methodology

Abstract

Technical innovations always carry with them clinical and scientific challenges. The aim of this paper is to provide a context for exploring the consequences of technical innovations for psychoanalysis as an interrelated method of observation, treatment, and body of knowledge about mental functioning. The problems are approached from a methodological perspective because scientific progress requires methodological clarity. The inquiry begins with a methodological investigation of the technical and theoretical consequences of first principles, that is, the consequences of the assumptions and methods we adopt for the kind of data that are obtained by their application and for the theory required to understand and unify the resulting observations. The conclusion suggests that if one organizes a doctor-patient relationship around the clinical-historical and free-association methods with the aim of removing all obstacles to communication, if the understandings that emerge include a full range of dynamic, structural, genetic and adaptive propositions, one is engaged in psychoanalytic inquiry. The circumstances under which Rothstein's technical recommendations enable such understandings to develop are an important topic for future research.     

Modelling argumentation and modelling with argumentation

This paper discusses the epistemological and methodological bases of a scientific theory of meaning and proposes a detailed version of a formal theory of argumentation based on Anscombre and Ducrot's conception. Argumentation is shown to be a concept which is not exclusively pragmatic, as it is usually believed, but has an important semantic body. The bridge between the semantic and pragmatic aspects of argumentation consists in a set of gradual inference rules, called topoi, on which the argumentative movement is based. The content of each topos is determined at the pragmatic level, while the constraints on the forms of the topoi attached to a sentence are determined at the semantic level. Applications and possible applications toartificial intelligence and to cognitive sciences are discussed. In particular, the gradual models used to account for argumentation are shown to be extremely promising for Knowledge management, a discipline which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, transmission of knowledge (communication, interfaces, etc.), knowledge production (decision help, reasoning, etc.). A first formal model is presented and discussed: it is shown in details how it accounts for most of the argumentative features of sentences containing but, little and a little, and how it can be extended to describe sentences containing other argumentative connectives. However, this model is shown to be too simple and to violate the compositionality principle, which is shown, in the first section, to bean important methodological principle for any scientific theory. After a detailed analysis of the possible reasons for this violation, an improved model is proposed and its adequacy is discussed.     

A Synthetic Approach to Bioethical Inquiry

This paper attempts to sort out some of the current tensions and ambiguities inherent in the field of bioethics as it continues to mature. In particular it focuses on the question of the methodological relevance of theory or ethical principles to the domain of clinical ethics. I offer an approach to reasoning about moral conflict that combines the insights of contemporary moral theorists, the philosophy of American pragmatism, and the skills of rhetorical deliberation. This synthetic approach locates a proper role for moral theory in the practice of clinical ethics, thus linking abstract philosophical ideas about morality, humanity, suffering, and health to specific deeds, actions, and decisions in the concrete lives of particular individuals. The aim of this synthetic approach of bioethical inquiry is a rapprochement between theoretical knowledge in moral philosophy and the contextualized, relational, and practical understanding of what morality demands of us in our daily lives. I argue for a conception of bioethical inquiry that takes morality to be a study of certain practical, socially embedded concerns about matters of right and wrong, good and evil, as well as a study of the moral theories by which these actual concerns can be explored and critically evaluated.     

Truthlikeness,Rationality And Scientific Method

I. A. Kieseppä's criticism of the methodological use of the theory of verisimilitude, and D. B. Resnik's arguments against the explanation of scientific method by appeal to scientific aims are critically considered. Since the notion of verisimilitude was introduced as an attempt to show that science can be seen as a rational enterprise in the pursuit of truth, defenders of the verisimilitude programme need to show that scientific norms can be interpreted (at least in principle) as rules that try to increase the degree of truthlikeness of scientific theories. This possibility is explored for several approaches to the problem of verisimilitude.     

Naive and refined truth approximation

The naive structuralist definition of truthlikeness is an idealization in the sense that it assumes that all mistaken models of a theory are equally bad. The natural concretization is a refined definition based on an underlying notion of structurelikeness.In Section 1 the naive definition of truthlikeness of theories is presented, using a new conceptual justification, in terms of instantial and explanatory mistakes.In Section 2 general constraints are formulated for the notions of structurelikeness and truthlikeness of structures.In Section 3 a refined definition of truthlikeness of theories is presented, based on the notion of structurelikeness, using a sophisticated version of the conceptual justification for the naive definition.In Section 4 it is shown that idealization and concretization is a special kind of potentially refined truth approximation.I would like to acknowledge that van Benthem (1987) played in several respects a crucial role in the research for a new refined definition. Moreover, I like to thank David Miller, Ilkka Niiniluoto, and two referees for their comments on an earlier version. One of the referees notes that the Miller version of the naive approach (in model-theoretic terms, and identifying the truth with the truth about the actual world) has been criticised on several occasions for its failure to accommodate likeness between structures by Oddie (notably Oddie, 1986). The idea that likeness between structures should be a guiding idea behind truthlikeness is said to be a constant theme of Oddie's work. All this may well be true, but I should add however that Oddie's publications did not play any role in my research. The local references to Oddie are based on the suggestions by the referee.     

Before ethics: scientific accounts of action at the turn of the century

This paper traces the intellectual trajectories of the first stand-alone theories of action, understood as both axiologically neutral and quasi-scientific from a methodological point of view. I argue that the rise of action theory of this kind corresponds to a particular moment of dissatisfaction within Western thought, and as such, it tells us far more about the history of philosophy than the subject itself. I conclude by explaining why subsequent failures to provide an acceptable theory of action are not accidental. On the contrary, such failures owe themselves probably to the fact that formulating a theory of action is neither propitious nor useful. Thus, the most valuable lesson we can learn from philosophical desires for a theory of action is that we should take co-action as the starting point in our normative investigations, rather than positing action simpliciter as a problem to solve. That is, instead of postulating a theory of action, we should think of a paradigm shift, whereby we move away from a representational paradigm in philosophy towards a co-actional one.