{"title":"拉卡托斯对卡纳普归纳逻辑的批评是错误的","authors":"Teddy Groves","doi":"10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In <span>[39]</span>, Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54881,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Logic","volume":"14 ","pages":"Pages 3-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lakatos's criticism of Carnapian inductive logic was mistaken\",\"authors\":\"Teddy Groves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In <span>[39]</span>, Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Logic\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 3-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jal.2015.09.014\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157086831500083X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Mathematics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157086831500083X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
Lakatos's criticism of Carnapian inductive logic was mistaken
In [39], Imre Lakatos influentially argued that Carnapian inductive logic was a degenerate research programme. This paper argues that Lakatos's criticism was mistaken and that, according to Lakatos's own standards, Carnapian inductive logic was progressive rather than degenerate.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
