Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCorkett, Christopher J.
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-31T12:52:07Z
dc.date.available2012-10-31T12:52:07Z
dc.date.issued2012-10-31
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/15671
dc.description.abstractIt has not always been realised that Karl Popper's analytic distinction between the logically stronger falsificationist's view of science and the logically weaker verificationist's and inductivist's view of science is a modification of Aristotle's distnction between the notions 'all' and 'some'. This document traces this distinction anew in a way that corrects my earlier (Corkett, 1997) account in which a semantic rather than a logical view was taken of this distinction. For example: when writing the 1997 paperI was not aware that the universal law "All swans are white' represented a universal categorical proposition 'All S is P' where 'S' represented the subject 'swan' and the 'P' represented the predicate 'white'. In this document I try to cover some of the main points of my 1997 paper in a way that clarifies their origin in the Law of Tripartite Entailment, a logical rule unknown to me fifteen years ago.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectAristotle
dc.subjectLaw of Tripartite Entailment
dc.subjectKarl Popper's non-inductive theory of method
dc.subjectFalsificationist's view of science
dc.subjectVerificationist's view of science
dc.subjectFisheries management
dc.titleSome notes on the Aristotelian origin of the distinction between a falsificationist's and verificationist's view of science: together with corrections to my earlier accounten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record