Popperian Ideas on Progress and Rationality in Science

(First presented at the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division Meeting 1996, at the Symposium on Scienti ic !ationality and Progress in Memory o Paul Feyera"end and #arl Popper$% I got to know Paul Feyerabend well in 1961, when I was in Berkeley. (I also met Tom Kuhn then. I lo!ed his ra"y, "are#ree, and o#ten sur$risingly erudite talk and letters. But a#ter Against Method we got rather stu"k into "on#rontational $ostures (see #or instan"e our argy%bargy in Progress and !ationality in Science, &adnit'ky () *ndersson 19+, . Karl Po$$er I #irst en"ountered ba"k in 19-+. .e had a de"isi!e #ormati!e in#luen"e on my intelle"tual li#e. I remain a tremendous admirer o# the ideas about s"ien"e, es$e"ially about the growth and $rogress o# s"ien"e, whi"h he $ublished during his heyday, #rom 19/- down to about 1960. But I am "riti"al o# "ertain tenden"ies in his later $hiloso$hy, one o# whi"h I turn to now.
(1)

For Po$$er, s"ien"e is like musi" or $oetry in that it re1uires in!enti!eness, there being no re"i$e or method #or "reating it, and also unlike musi" and $oetry in that there are "riteria o# $rogress #or it but not #or them. 2hat are these "riteria3 Po$$erians are generally agreed that "orroborations ha!e a dominant role in determining whether one s"ienti#i" theory is better than another4 but there ha!e been large disagreements as to why, or in what sense, the better "orroborated o# two theories is the better theory. This is the main 1uestion I shall address.
(2)

Through the 1960s and early 19+0s Po$$er belie!ed that he had got hold o# an ordinal s"ale #or truth%likeness or !erisimilitude. Its lower bound was gi!en by the "ontradi"tion, and its u$$er bound by the set & o# all true statements. In $la"e o# this latter "on"e$t he sometimes o$erated with the idea o# the target theory towards
(3)

whi"h a se1uen"e o# s"ienti#i" theories , , $rogressing (see #or instan"e his 19+6, $. 155 .
(4)

, ea"h o# whi"h may be #alse, is

2hen is a theory more truth%like than theory 3 Po$$er6s original answer was de"e$ti!ely sim$le and $ersuasi!e. * theory6s "ontent is the totality o# its logi"al "onse1uen"es4 its true "onse1uen"es "onstitute its truth%"ontent and its #alse "onse1uen"es, i# any, its #alsity%"ontent. *nd Po$$er $ro$osed the #ollowing three re1uirements #or theory truth%"ontent in"ludes in"luded in to ha!e greater !erisimilitude than theory 6s4 se"ond, 7 #irst, 6s

6s #alsity%"ontent, whi"h may be 'ero, is

6s4 third, at least one o# these in"lusions is stri"t. These re1uirements are

tri!ially met when is true and stri"tly entails . But his idea o# in"reasing !erisimilitude should a$$ly to #alse theories. For it was a main $lank o# his anti% indu"ti!ist !iew o# s"ien"e that, at least sin"e *na8imander6s e8$lanation o# the earth6s su$$osed stability in terms o# there being no su##i"ient reason #or it to mo!e in any $arti"ular dire"tion be"ause it is e1uidistant #rom the hea!enly bodies around it,

s"ien"e has been ad!an"ing e8$lanatory theories that ty$i"ally turned out to be #alse, and were o#ten aimed at erroneous e8$lananda. .e broa"hed these ideas in 1960, at the #irst 9:P; meeting, in ;tan#ord. They were $ublished in <ha$ter 10 o# 'on(ectures and !e utations (196/ . *s is well known, a de"ade later a #atal de#e"t in them was dis"o!ered inde$endently by =a!id :iller (19+-" and the late Pa!el Ti"hy (19+- . ;oon a#terwards .erbert Keuth (19+6 and .ermann >etter (19++ inde$endently dis"o!ered another dis"ouraging result, and I will begin with this.
(5)

I used to belie!e that I had made one small "ontribution to the theory o# !erisimilitude. In my Science and Scepticism (19,- I made mu"h use o# the idea o# two statements being in"ongruent "ounter$arts o# one another4 that is, their "onse1uen"es, though di##erent, are in one%to%one "orres$onden"e. *nd I took it #or granted that #or one in"ongruent "ounter$art to be "loser to the truth than the other, the ratio o# true to #alse among its "onse1uen"es must be higher than it is among those o# the other. I was unaware that Keuth and >etter had shown that #or any #alse statement, the number o# its true "onse1uen"es e1uals the number o# its #alse "onse1uen"es. I tried to $ut matters right in 2atkins (19,+ .
(6)

:iller (199-, $$. ?09# has re"ently "ome u$ with a neat new way o# obtaining this result as well as his and Ti"hy6s $re!ious result. 9et & be a #alse theory and let be a $ro$osition in its #alsity%"ontent. @ow "onsider the bi%"onditional %i##%), where ) is some $ro$osition4 %i##%) is true when ) is #alse and #alse when ) is true. To e!ery ) in &6s truth%"ontent there will "orres$ond an %i##%) in &6s #alsity%"ontent, and to e!ery ) in &6s #alsity%"ontent there will "orres$ond an )%i##% in &6s truth%"ontent. This re$rodu"es the Keuth%>etter result.
(7)

I may mention that my idea "on"erning the "om$arati!e !erisimilitude o# in"ongruent "ounter$arts would ha!e a!oided this result i# I had restri"ted the "om$arison to their em$iri"al "ontent, as understood in Science and Scepticism where it is e1uated with the "lass o# the theory6s singular $redi"ti!e im$li"ations, or ;PIs, as I "all them. These are sim$ly the negations o# what Po$$er "alled its $otential #alsi#iers. Thus i#, to take the sim$lest "ase, the theory were (8 (F8 A8 where F and A are obser!ational $redi"ates, then Fa Aa is a $otential #alsi#ier and Fa Aa is the "orres$onding ;PI. *s I "hara"teri'ed them, ;PIs generally ha!e a $ebbly "hara"ter7 i# you ha!e two se$arate $ebbles you don6t "reate a new $ebble by sti"king them together, not e!en i# you use su$er%glue4 and nor do you "reate a new ;PI by sti"king together two ;PIs, at least i# their $redi"ates do not o!erla$. Thus i# is one ;PI and ) is another, %i##%) is not a ;PI. *nd i# & and &6 are in"ongruent "ounter$arts with their ;PIs in one%to%one "orres$onden"e, it is entirely $ossible that the ratio o# true to #alse among the ;PIs o# & is higher than it is among those o# &6. :iller on"e used the analogy o# in!ited guests arri!ing trailing gate"rashers behind them to de$i"t the de#e"t in Po$$er6s de#inition o# !erisimilitude (:iller 19+-a . &estri"ting the "onse1uen"es that are taken into a""ount to ;PIs should e8"lude Bgate"rashers6.
(8) (9)

@ow to :iller6s new way o# obtaining his and Ti"hy6s old result. The 1uestion is , ...o# theories whi"h, though #alse, are $rogressing , "ould ha!e more !erisimilitude than in

whether, gi!en a se1uen"e towards the true target theory

Po$$er6s (196/ sense. *ssume that

and

satis#y Po$$er6s #irst and se"ond

re1uirements7 6s truth%"ontent in"ludes 6s and 6s #alsity%"ontent in"ludes 6s. <an they satis#y his third re1uirement, that at least one o# the in"lusions is stri"t3 9et now be a statement in 6s #alsity%"ontent4 by the se"ond re1uirement will also be in . ;u$$ose #irst that ) is #alse. Then by the se"ond . ;u$$ose ne8t that ) is true4 then %i##%) . But sin"e already "ontains both is

. 9et ) be any "onse1uen"e o#

re1uirement, again, this #alse ) must be in is in

6s #alsity%"ontent and again must be in

and %i##%), it will also "ontain this true ). Thus e!ery ), whether true or #alse, in also in 4 has no e8"ess "ontent, and hen"e no e8"ess truth%"ontent, o!er Po$$er6s third re1uirement "annot be met.
(10)

Po$$er6s "riti"s did not atta"h mu"h im$ortan"e to his "on"e$t o# !erisimilitude in its heyday4 but a#ter its deba"le in 19+-, news o# whi"h s$read ra$idly, some o# them "ame to see it as the "entral $lank o# his $hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e, the whole system being brought down by its "olla$se. Po$$er6s estimate o# its im$ortan"e "hanged in the o$$osite way. 2hen he #irst introdu"ed this idea he had indeed made it a, i# not the, "entral $lank o# his $hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e, saying that we sim$ly "annot do without something like it (196/ $. ?/? and e1uating s"ienti#i" $rogress with in"reasing !erisimilitude. *#ter the deba"le his estimate #li$$ed o!er. This shows u$ "learly in !ealism and the Aim o Science (Po$$er 19,? . In the main te8t, work on whi"h had "ome to a sto$ in 196?, he had said that to des"ribe one theory as better than, or su$erior to, another is to "laim that it "omes nearer to the truth ($. ?5 4 and he e!en suggested that the $roblem o# indu"tion "an be sol!ed by re$la"ing truth with Bbetter appro)imation to the truth6 ($. 6+ . But in his new Introdu"tion, dated 19,?, he remarked $arentheti"ally that the idea o# !erisimilitude was not an essential $art o# his theory ($. 888!ii . Be"ause attention has mainly #o"used on de#e"ts in Po$$er6s de#inition o# !erisimilitude, not mu"h attention has been $aid to the role he was gi!ing to !erisimilitude in his later $hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e. That is what I now turn to. >arious attem$ts ha!e been made to re$la"e his de#inition by a !iable one, #or instan"e Kui$ers (19,?, 19,+a , @iiniluoto (19,+ , Cddie (19,6 , and ;"hur' ( 2eingartner (19,+ . I ha!e not attem$ted to assess their "om$arati!e merits, $artly be"ause o# the es"alating te"hni"ality o# the dis"ussion. But I now assume #or argument6s sake that an ade1uate de#inition e8ists4 and I now ask7 how satis#a"tory would Po$$er6s e1uation o# the aim o# s"ien"e with e!er%in"reasing !erisimilitude ha!e been i# the latter had been ade1uately de#ined.
(11)

2hat was Po$$er taking as the aim #or s"ien"e be#ore he hit on the idea o# !erisimilitude3 2ell, #rom *ogi+ der Forschung (19/- to BThe *im o# ;"ien"e6 (195+ he was saying that s"ien"e aims at e!er better e)planations, and that "hoi"es between "om$eting e8$lanatory theories are "ontrolled by corro"orations. .e said some !ery interesting things about how, in the best "ase, a theory should stand to its
(12)

$rede"essor(s to "onstitute a better e8$lanation. The bottom line was that it should be more "orrobora"le, and go on to be"ome better "orroborated. ;u"h a theory will not be "ertainly true or $robably true, but it will be $ossibly true in the sense that it is well tested and, as yet, un#alsi#ied. ;o I $ro$osed in Science and Scepticism that so #ar as truth is "on"erned s"ien"e aims at theories that are $ossibly true. This brought *lan :usgra!e6s wrath u$on me7 s"ien"e aims at truth, not at $ossible truth (see e.g. his 19,9, $$. /0?%/ . :iller agrees with :usgra!e here. @ow I o# "ourse a""e$t that the idea o# truth is a regulati!e ideal #or s"ien"e7 truth is what s"ien"e as$ires a#ter. But to as$ire a#ter D is not e1ual to aiming at D. * s"hoolboy who dreams o# being a military hero does not yet ha!e military aims. I# one is to aim at D, and $ursue one6s aim rationally, one needs to be able to monitor the su""ess or #ailure o# one6s attem$ts to a"hie!e D. *re Po$$erians entitled to "laim that one "ould do so i# D were sim$ly truth3 .ere is a sim$li#ied !ersion o# what, #or us, would be a $aradigm o# s"ienti#i" $rogress. 2ithin some $roblem%situation a $ower#ul
(13)

new theory

is ad!an"ed. It is tested and #or a time it only wins "orroborations. But is ad!an"ed. <ru"ial e8$eriments between it and . The s$lendid has #allen in battle.

then a more "orroborable theory

are $er#ormed, and they go in #a!our o# 9ater, the $attern is re$eated, with "orroborable @ot with

being re#uted and su$erseded by the more

. 2as s"ien"e #ul#illing the aim o# truth in this admirable $rogression3 whi"h su##ered the same #ate.

, whi"h turned out to be #alse, nor with

Perha$s this aim was #ul#illed with ne!er learn that it was.
(14)

3 2ell, we may learn that it was not but we6ll

But i# D were e!er better "orroborated theories, s"ien"e "ould monitor !ery well the su""ess or #ailure o# its attem$ts to a"hie!e D. In our ideali'ed $rogression the latest theory6s $attern o# "orroborations dominates its $rede"essors6, with e!ery test% result that "orroborates them also "orroborating it, while some test%results whi"h "orroborate it are either neutral to earlier theories, being in an area where they are silent, or dis"orroborate them. C# "ourse, "orroboration situations may be messy4 but in this "lear"ut situation Po$$er6s $re%1960s !intage methodology said that it is rational $ro!isionally to a""e$t
(15)

as the "urrently best "orroborated theory in its #ield.

This was the "ue, ba"k in those $re%!erisimilitude days, #or "riti"s o# this $ur$ortedly non%indu"ti!ist $hiloso$hy to ask ,hy the best "orroborated theory is the best theory. *s Feyerabend might ha!e $ut it, what6s so great about "orroboration3 I# Po$$erian "orroboration is #ree o# any tin"ture o# indu"ti!ism, i# a "orroboration% a$$raisal merely "om$ares the $ast $er#orman"es o# the theories under test, o# what interest is it, e8"e$t to historians, to know that Perha$s
(16)

is better "orroborated than

will $er#orm better in the #uture.

In Science and Scepticism I attem$ted to answer this 1uestion without bringing in !erisimilitude and in a way that would $reser!e the non%indu"ti!e "hara"ter o# this

$hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e. I will "ome ba"k to that later. In the meanwhile let us ask what use Po$$er made, in the 1960s and +0s, o# his new theory o# !erisimilitude in his a""ount o# $rogress and rationality in s"ien"e. The short answer is that he used it to turn what many saw as a $essimisti" $hiloso$hy, in whi"h the truth is $ermanently hidden, into an o$timisti" $hiloso$hy in whi"h we "an know, or at least ha!e reason to belie!e, that we are making $rogress with res$e"t to truth. <orroboration, he said, though not a measure, is an indicator o# !erisimilitude (19+? $. 10/, his em$hasis . *n old indu"ti!ist !iew was that i#, say, twenty $airs o# e8$erimental !alues are #ound to #it a sim$le linear #un"tion y E () , then this #un"tion !ery $robably re$resents a law o# nature sin"e it would otherwise be e8tremely im$robable that Fust these !alues would ha!e obtained. .ermann 2eyl "riti"ised this on the ground that all sorts o# other mathemati"al #un"tions "ould be de#ined whi"h these !alues will e1ually satis#y4 and in &he *ogic o Scienti ic Discovery Po$$er went along with that (1959 $$. 1/9% 1-0, and Gn1 . But a#ter the introdu"tion o# !erisimilitude his $osition "hanged. .e now de"lared that a "laim like, BIt is highly im$robable that Hinstein6s theory would make $redi"tions that are $re"ise and "orre"t unless it were true6 be"omes !alid when Btrue6 is re$la"ed by Bhigh degree o# !erisimilitude6 (19+- $. 119? . .e also wrote7 BI# two "om$eting theories ha!e been "riti"i'ed and tested as thoroughly as we "ould manage, with the result that the degree o# "orroboration o# one o# them is greater than that o# the other, we will, in general, ha!e reason to "elieve that the #irst is a better a$$ro8imation to the truth than the se"ond6 (Po$$er 19,?, $. 5,, his em$hasis . In short, "orroboration%a$$raisals $ro!ide some Fusti#i"ation #or the "orres$onding !erisimilitude%a$$raisals.
(17)

It seems "lear that an indu"ti!e element has been let in here. <onsider the

#ollowing s"enario. and res$e"ti!ely entail "on#li"ting singular $redi"ti!e im$li"ations ;PI and ;PI 4 these are rele!ant to some urgent te"hnologi"al $roblem, say to $re!ent a nu"lear "atastro$he. There has as yet been no test on the two theories with res$e"t to $redi"tions o# these kinds, but the theories ha!e been se!erely tested in other $la"es, and has emerged as unambiguously better "orroborated than . I# that

gi!es us reason to belie!e that is nearer the truth than , then we surely ha!e some reason to $re#er ;PI to ;PI . 9et us use Breliable6, in analogy with Bdesirable6 and B$re#erable6, to mean Bworthy o# being relied u$on6. Po$$er on"e asked rhetori"ally7 BBut do I not really draw indu"ti!e "on"lusions #rom $ast $er#orman"e to #uture $er#orman"e36 (19,? $. 66 . The answer seems "lear. To $ro"eed #rom e!iden"e about $ast instan"es to a "ategori"al "on"lusion about the ne8t instan"e is o# "ourse an indu"ti!e in#eren"e4 and Po$$er insisted that it would still be indu"ti!e i# it $ro"eeded only to a $robabilisti" "on"lusion. To whi"h we may add that it would still be indu"ti!e i# it $ro"eeded to su"h a "on"lusion in se!eral ste$s. In the $resent "ase, we $ro"eed #rom e!iden"e as to how and ha!e $er#ormed under test in the $ast !ia a "orroboration%a$$raisal to a !erisimilitude%a$$raisal and then"e to a "on"lusion about their relati!e reliability in the #uture. Indu"ti!ists may e8"laim, B;o he6s one o# us a#ter allI Aood #or him.6 But I #ind it sad when a $hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e whose $roud "laim was to ha!e dis$ensed with indu"tion "o!ertly reneges on that "laim. Is there any way in whi"h Po$$erian ideas o# rational "hoi"e between "om$eting s"ienti#i" theories, and o# theoreti"al $rogress in s"ien"e, "an be u$held without a
(18)

resort to some #orm o# indu"ti!ism3 I think there is. Po$$er had the !aluable idea, whi"h I e8$loited in Science and Scepticism, o# se$arating Fusti#i"ation o# pre erences #or statements (hy$otheses, theories #rom Fusti#i"ations o# the statements themsel!es. I will suggest that he misused this distin"tion but that it "an be used to sol!e our $roblem. Justi#i"ationists usually see Fusti#i"ation as allowing o# degrees, with B!eri#i"ation6, B$roo#6, et". reser!ed #or limiting "ases4 they would say that to Fusti#y a statement you need arguments whi"h go some way towards establishing it as true, or at least as "lose to the truth4 a"tually to establish its truth, i# that were $ossible, would Fusti#y it "on"lusi!ely. *nd with res$e"t to "om$eting hy$otheses they would say that to Fusti#y hy$othesis a against hy$othesis " you need arguments #or a being more $robable, or $erha$s more truthlike, than ". It seems ob!ious that the Fusti#i"ation o# a $re#eren"e #or a o!er ", whether these are statements or entities o# some other kind,
(19)

must be with res$e"t to some $ro$erty (or "om$le8 o# $ro$erties , "all it . Kou are #ree to $re#er lemonade to "ham$agne4 but i# you seek to (usti y your unusual $re#eren"e you must bring in some $ro$erty, say kee$ing a "lear head, with res$e"t to whi"h lemonade tends to $er#orm better than "ham$agne. I# the #oregoing elu"idations are a""e$ted, it #ollows that to Fusti#y statement a is the !ery same thing as to Fusti#y a $re#eren"e #or a with res$e"t to truth. Cne may Fusti#y a $re#eren"e #or a with res$e"t to without Fusti#ying a only i# is not truth, or some relati!e o# truth su"h as !erisimilitude. In !ealism and the Aim o Science ($$. 19%?0 Po$$er distinguished between three $roblems7 that o# adFudi"ating between "om$eting s"ienti#i" theories, that o# Fusti#ying s"ienti#i" theories, and that o# showing one s"ienti#i" theory to be pre era"le to another. 2hereas Fusti#i"ationist $hiloso$hers subordinate adFudi"ation and $re#eren"e to Fusti#i"ation, Po$$er "laimed to take an attitude to the $roblem o# Fusti#i"ation that was Bas unam"iguously negative as that o# any irrationalist or s"e$ti"6. .is idea was to lea!e out Fusti#i"ation and sol!e the $roblem o# adFudi"ation !ia the $roblem o# $re#eren"e. But now "omes a big letdown7 he added that by a theory being $re#erable to another he meant that we ha!e reasons to think it a closer appro)imation to the truth ($. ?0, his em$hasis . *t another $la"e, a#ter saying that there is a world o# di##eren"e between Fusti#ying a pre erence and Fusti#ying a theory, he immediately added7 BTo Fusti#y a theory is to show that it is true. But we may Fusti#y a $re#eren"e, e!en #or a #alse theory, i# we "an show that o# all the "om$eting theories it a$$ears to "ome nearer to the truth than any o# the others6 (199- $. 1/, . .is e1uation o# Fusti#i"ation with "on"lusi!e Fusti#i"ation is a bit ri"h, "oming #rom someone who s$ent mu"h time atta"king $robabilisti" !ersions o# Fusti#i"ationism, like those o# Keynes, &ei"henba"h and <arna$, and who insisted that the $roblem o# Fusti#ying indu"ti!e "on"lusions remains the same i# one $uts B$robable6 in #ront o# B"on"lusions6 (19+? $. - . Cn"e it is a""e$ted that Fusti#i"ation allows o# degrees, it seems "lear that to Fusti#y a $re#eren"e #or a theory with res$e"t to !erisimilitude would tend to Fusti#y the theory itsel#. .is later $hiloso$hy was tainted by Fusti#i"ationism as well as by indu"ti!ism.
(20) (21)

* 1ui"k word now about the !iew o# s"ienti#i" $rogress and rationality taken in

my Science and Scepticism. <all a $ro$erty o# a theory "ontingent or inherent

a""ording to whether or not $ossession o# de$ends on #a"tors e8ternal to the theory. Thus the "onsisten"y o# a "onsistent and #alsi#ied theory is an inherent $ro$erty, while its #alsity is a "ontingent $ro$erty. *nd a theory is inherently %er than another i# degrees o# %ness de$end only on #eatures o# the theories and are inde$endent o# #a"tors e8ternal to them. Thus $arametersL sense, than may be inherently sim$ler, say in a L$au"ity o# and are neither tautologi"al nor sel#% 6s being "loser to the truth than

. But i#

"ontradi"tory but regular s"ienti#i" theories, then would be a "ontingent $ro$erty.

(22)

*t one e8treme, a $ro$osed aim #or s"ien"e might ere"t one "ontingent $ro$erty, su"h as being !eri#ied, into the sole desideratum. The aim $ro$osed in Science and Scepticism goes as #ar as it "an in the other dire"tion. *ll but one o# the $ro$erties o# theories whi"h it holds u$ as desiderata are inherent $ro$erties7 its B%$ole, as I "all it, says that s"ien"e should aim at theories that are e!er dee$er, more uni#ied, more $redi"ti!ely $ower#ul and e8a"t. The great ad!antage o# su"h inherent $ro$erties in the $resent "onte8t is, o# "ourse, that they are outside the rea"h o# indu"ti!e s"e$ti"ism. Presented with two theories suitably #ormulated in a language #or whose $redi"ates there is an agreed $artition into obser!ational and theoreti"al, logi"al e8amination should enable one to tell whi"h is %er when is one o# these $ro$erties. It turned out that the abo!e #our $ro$erties "an be "olla$sed into two7 dee$er, and wider. ;u$$ose that theory has been #ound to be dee$er and wider than , its only

serious ri!al. In that "ase it will ty$i"ally ha$$en both that some o# "ontent di!erges, i# only slightly, #rom o!er 6s and also that

6s testable

has e8"ess testable "ontent

. This brings me to this aim6s *%$ole. For

to be a""e$ted as an ad!an"e o!er

there needs to ha!e been at least one test on it in areas o# di!ergent or e8"ess "ontent, and its $attern o# "orroborations should dominate earlier, with e!ery test%result that "orroborates 6s in the way mentioned

also "orroborating it, and some test% .

results whi"h "orroborate it either neutral to or dis"orroborating

(23)

I "laimed this aim to be the o$timum aim #or s"ien"e4 it "ontains what "an be retained o# the Ba"on%=es"artes dream #or s"ien"e when this is de%uto$iani'ed and rendered #easible. 9ike Po$$er6s $hiloso$hy o# s"ien"e, this re!ised !ersion gi!es "orroborations a de"isi!e role. But its way o# Fusti#ying a $re#eren"e #or the best "orroborated theory in its #ield is not like the way he started talking in the 1960s and early 19+0s4 it does not treat "orroborations as indi"ators o# !erisimilitude, thereby surre$titiously turning a Fusti#i"ation #or a $re#eren"e #or a theory into a Fusti#i"ation o# the theory. In suitable "ases it Fusti#ies a $re#eren"e #or the better "orroborated o!er on the ground that is better than with res$e"t to the o$timum aim o#

s"ien"e, where the latter does not re1uire the thus $re#erred theories to be "ertainly true, or in some sense $robably true, but only $ossibly true in the old Po$$erian sense o# ha!ing been se!erely tested and sur!i!ing so #ar.

References
% Keuth, .. (19+6 , B>erisimilitude or the *$$roa"h to the 2hole Truth6, Philosophy o Science $$. /11%//6. % Kui$ers, T. *. F. (19,? , B*$$roa"hing =es"ri$ti!e and Theoreti"al Truth6, Er+enntnis 18, /-/%/+,. % Kui$ers, T. *. F. (19,+a , <ontributions, in -hat is 'loser.to.the.&ruth/ (Kui$ers 19,+" , $$. 1%+, +9%99, 1++%1,6. % Kui$ers, T. *. F., ed. (19,+" , -hat is 'loser.to.the.&ruth/, &odo$i, *msterdam. % :iller, =. (19+-a , BCn the <om$arison o# False Theories by their Bases6, &he 0ritish 1ournal or the Philosophy o Science 25, 1+,%1,,. % :iller, =. (19+-" , BPo$$er6s Mualitati!e Theory o# >erisimilitude6, &he 0ritish 1ournal or the Philosophy o Science 25, 166%1++. % :iller, =. (199- , 'ritical !ationalism2 a restatement and de ence, C$en <ourt, <hi"ago. % :usgra!e, *. (19,9 , ;a!ing ;"ien"e #rom ;"e$ti"ism, in F. =6*gostino ( I. <. Jar!ie, eds, BFreedom and &ationality7 essays in honor o# John 2atkins6, Kluwer, =ordre"ht, $$. ?9+%/?/. % @iiniluoto, I. (19,+ , &ruthli+eness, &eidel, =ordre"ht. % Cddie, A. (19,6 , *i+eness to &ruth, &eidel, =ordre"ht. % Po$$er, K. &. (19/- , *ogi+ der Forschung, ;$ringer, >ienna. % Po$$er, K. &. (195+ , BThe *im o# ;"ien"e6, !atio 1, ?-%/5. &e$rinted in (Po$$er 19+? , $$. 191%?05. % Po$$er, K. &. (1959 , &he *ogic o Scienti ic Discovery, .ut"hinson, 9ondon. Hnglish translation, with new $re#a"e, #ootnotes and a$$endi"es o# (Po$$er 19/- . % Po$$er, K. &. (196/ , 'on(ectures and !e utations, &outledge, 9ondon. % Po$$er, K. &. (19+? , 3"(ective #no,ledge, <larendon Press, C8#ord. %

Po$$er, K. &. (19+- , &e$lies to my <riti"s, in P. *. ;"hil$$, ed., BThe Philoso$hy o# Karl Po$$er6, >ol. DI> o# &he *i"rary o *iving Philosophers, C$en <ourt, Illinois, $$. 961%119+ (Book II . % Po$$er, K. &. (19+6 , B* @ote on >erisimilitude6, &he 0ritish 1ournal or the Philosophy o Science 27, 1-+%159. % Po$$er, K. &. (19,? , !ealism and the Aim o Science, .ut"hinson, 9ondon. % Po$$er, K. &. (199- , #no,ledge and the 0ody.Mind Pro"lem2 4n de ence o interaction, &outledge, 9ondon and @ew Kork. Hdited by :. *. @otturno. % &adnit'ky, A. ( *ndersson, A., eds ( 19+, , Progress and !ationality in Science, &eidel. % ;"hur', A. ( 2eingartner, P. (19,+ , >erisimilitude =e#ined by &ele!ant <onse1uen"e%Hlements, in Kui$ers (19,+" , $$. -+%++. % Ti"hy, P. (19+- , BCn Po$$er6s =e#initions o# >erisimilitude6, &he 0ritish 1ournal or the Philosophy o Science 25, 155%160. % >etter, .. (19++ , B* @ew <on"e$t o# >erisimilitude6, &heory and Decision 8, /69%/+5. % 2atkins, J. (19,- , Science and Scepticism, Prin"eton Nni!ersity Press and .ut"hinson, Prin"eton and 9ondon. % 2atkins, J. (19,+ , B* @ote on In"ongruent <ounter$arts and >erisimilitude6, Er+enntnis 26, ?95%/00.

The Critical Rationalist

Vol. 02

No. 02

ISSN: 1393-38 9

5-!"n-1997