World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Verisimilitude

Article Id: WHEBN0002052891
Reproduction Date:

Title: Verisimilitude  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Truth, False document, Naturalism (literature), McNamara fallacy, Necronomicon
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Verisimilitude

Verisimilitude is a philosophical concept that distinguishes between the truth and the falsity of assertions and hypotheses.[1] The problem of verisimilitude is the problem of articulating what it takes for one false theory to be closer to the truth than another false theory.[2][3]

This problem was central to the philosophy of Karl Popper, largely because Popper was among the first among Western thinkers (Rishis of India had established this in ancient times) to affirm that truth is the aim of scientific inquiry while acknowledging that most of the greatest scientific theories in the history of science are, strictly speaking, false.[4] If this long string of purportedly false theories is to constitute progress with respect to the goal of truth then it must be at least possible for one false theory to be closer to the truth than others.

Karl Popper

Popper assumed that scientists are interested in highly informative theories, in part for methodological reasons — the more informative a theory, the easier it is to test, and the greater its predictive power. But clearly informative power by itself is rather easy to come by, and we do not want to gain content by sacrificing truths. So Popper proposed that closeness to the truth is a function of two factors — truth and content. The more truths that a theory entails (other things being equal) the closer it is to the truth.

Intuitively at least, it seems that Newton's theory of motion entails a good many more truths than does, say, Aristotle's theory — despite the fact that both are known to have flaws. Even two true theories can have differing degrees of verisimilitude, depending on how much true information they deliver. For example, the claim "it will be raining on Thursday next week," if true, is closer to the truth than the true yet logically weaker claim "it will either be raining next Thursday or it will be sunny."

Popper's formal definition of verisimilitude was challenged by Pavel Tichý [5] and David Miller, [6] who argued that Popper's definition has an unintended consequence: that no false theory could be closer to the truth than another. This result gave rise to a search for an account of verisimilitude that did not deem progress towards the truth an impossibility.

Some of the new theories (e.g. Miller, Kuipers) build on Popper's approach, guided by the notion that truthlikeness is a function of a truth factor and a content factor. Others (e.g. Schurz, Weingartner, Mortenson, Gemes) are also inspired by Popper's approach but locate what they believe to be the error of Popper's proposal in his overly generous notion of content, or consequence, proposing instead that the consequences that contribute to closeness to truth must be, in a technical sense, "relevant." A different approach (e.g. Tichý, Hilpinen, Niiniluoto, Oddie) takes the "likeness" in truthlikeness literally, holding that a proposition's likeness to the truth is a function of the overall likeness to the actual world of the possible worlds in which the proposition would be true.[7] There is currently a debate about whether or to what extent these different approaches to the concept are compatible.[8]

Another problem in Popper's theory of verisimilitude is the connection between truthlikeness as the goal of scientific progress, on the one hand, and methodology, on the other hand, as the ways in which we can to some extent ensure that scientific research actually approaches this goal. Popper conceived of his definition as a justification of his own preferred methodology: falsificationism, in the following sense: suppose theory A is closer to the truth than theory B according to Popper's qualitative definition of verisimilitude; in this case, we will (or should, if that definition had been logically sound) have that all true consequences of B (ie: all predicted consequences of theory B's mathematical and physical predictions subject to a particular set of initial conditions) are consequences of [theory] A (['s] similarly predicted consequences - ie, informally, B ≤ A, using horrendous notation), and that all false consequences of A are consequences of B (in that those set of events deemed impossible by theory A are a subset of those events deemed impossible B, subject to the same initial data conditions for both - ie, informally, ¬B ≥ ¬A, so that ¬A ≤ ¬B); this means that, if A and B are so related, then it should be the case that all known false empirical consequences of A also follow from B, and all known true empirical consequences of B do follow from A. So, if A were closer to the truth than B, then A should be better corroborated than B by any possible amount of empirical evidence. Lastly, this easy theorem allows to interpret the fact that A is actually better corroborated than B as a corroboration of the hypothesis (or 'meta-hypothesis') that A is more verisimilar than B.

References

  1. ^ "Definition of Verisimilitude, Carson-Newman University". Retrieved 2013-09-23. 
  2. ^ "Realism in American Literature, 1860-1890, Washington State University". Retrieved 2013-09-23. 
  3. ^ "Definition of Verisimilitude, Literary Devices". Retrieved 2013-09-23. 
  4. ^ "The Problem of Verisimilitude, University of Wisconsin-Madison". Retrieved 2013-09-23. 
  5. ^ Pavel Tichý: On Popper's definitions of verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25:2 (June 1974), 155–160.
  6. ^ David Miller: Popper's Qualitative Theory of Verisimilitude. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25:2 (June 1974), 166–177
  7. ^ Truthlikeness, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthlikeness/.
  8. ^ Zwart, S. D., and Franssen, M.: An impossibility theorem for verisimilitude. Synthese, 158:1 (2007), 75–92.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.