Open AccessThis article is
- freely available
Constructive Verification, Empirical Induction, and Falibilist Deduction: A Threefold Contrast
Department of Applied Mathematics, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão 1010, Cidade Universitária, 05508-090, São Paulo, Brazil
Received: 9 August 2011; in revised form: 21 October 2011 / Accepted: 26 October 2011 / Published: 31 October 2011
Abstract: This article explores some open questions related to the problem of verification of theories in the context of empirical sciences by contrasting three epistemological frameworks. Each of these epistemological frameworks is based on a corresponding central metaphor, namely: (a) Neo-empiricism and the gambling metaphor; (b) Popperian falsificationism and the scientific tribunal metaphor; (c) Cognitive constructivism and the object as eigen-solution metaphor. Each of one of these epistemological frameworks has also historically co-evolved with a certain statistical theory and method for testing scientific hypotheses, respectively: (a) Decision theoretic Bayesian statistics and Bayes factors; (b) Frequentist statistics and p-values; (c) Constructive Bayesian statistics and e-values. This article examines with special care the Zero Probability Paradox (ZPP), related to the verification of sharp or precise hypotheses. Finally, this article makes some remarks on Lakatos’ view of mathematics as a quasi-empirical science.
Keywords: Bayesian statistics; cognitive constructivism; eigen-solutions; Imre Lakatos; neo-empiricism; Popperian falsificationism; sharp hypotheses; zero probability paradox
Citations to this Article
Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Stern, J.M. Constructive Verification, Empirical Induction, and Falibilist Deduction: A Threefold Contrast. Information 2011, 2, 635-650.
Stern JM. Constructive Verification, Empirical Induction, and Falibilist Deduction: A Threefold Contrast. Information. 2011; 2(4):635-650.
Stern, Julio Michael. 2011. "Constructive Verification, Empirical Induction, and Falibilist Deduction: A Threefold Contrast." Information 2, no. 4: 635-650.