Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ksgrx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-22T09:26:08.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are “All-and-Some” Statements Falsifiable After All?: The Example of Utility Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Philippe Mongin
Philippe Mongin
Affiliation:
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Popper's well-known demarcation criterion has often been understood to distinguish statements of empirical science according to their logical form. Implicit in this interpretation of Popper's philosophy is the belief that when the universe of discourse of the empirical scientist is infinite, empirical universal sentences are falsifiable but not verifiable, whereas the converse holds for existential sentences. A remarkable elaboration of this belief is to be found in Watkins's early work (1957, 1958) on the statements he calls “all-and-some,” such as: “For every metal there is a melting point.” All-and-some statements (hereafter AS) are both universally and existentially quantified in that order. Watkins argued that AS should be regarded as both nonfalsifiable and nonverifiable, for they partake in the logical fate of both universal and existential statements. This claim is subject to the proviso that the bound variables are “uncircumscribed” (in Watkins's words); i.e., that the universe of discourse is infinite.

Information

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 185 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Boland, L. 1981. “On the Futility of Criticizing the Neo-Classical Maximization Hypothesis.” American Economic Review 71:1031–36.Google Scholar
Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of Value. New Haven: Cowles Foundations Monograph.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1945. “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation.” Reprinted as Hempel, 1965, ch. 1.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1950. “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Reprinted as Hempel, 1965, ch. 4.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1934–1972. Logik der Forschung. Revised English edition. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1974. “Replies to My Critics.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, edited by Schilpp, P. A., pp. 961–1197. La Salle: Open Court, Library of Living Philosophers, p. 961–1197.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1972. The Foundations of Statistics. (1st ed., 1954). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1985. “Quantification of Theoretical Terms and the Falsifiability of Theories.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36:281–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A., and Groen, G. I.. 1973. “Ramsey Eliminability and the Testability of Scientific Theories.” Reprinted in Simon, H. A., Models of Discovery, 1977. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1973. “Theoretical Concepts.” Vienna: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1957. “Between Analytic and Empirical.” Philosophy (04):112–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1958. “Confirmable and Influential Metaphysics.” Mind 67: 344–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1975. “Metaphysics and the Advancement of Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26:91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar