-
Confirmation is not possible
-Carl G. Hempel (1905-1997)
-1945
-Hempel stated that the evidential standards intended for hypothesis validation or falisification were not sufficient to confirm a hypothesis. He said “no finite amount of experimental evidence can conclusively verify a hypothesis expressing a general law”.
-Hempel, Carl G. “I.—STUDIES IN THE LOGIC OF CONFIRMATION (I.).” Mind, vol. LIV, no. 213, 1945, pp. 1–26. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/mind/LIV.213.1. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF3_fp8N0mc) -
Hempel's raven paradox
-Carl G. Hempel (1905-1997)
-1945
-Hempel stated that the evidence used in the scientific method essentially becomes the observation for subsequent iterations. The almost interchangeable nature of observation and evidence is paradoxical and considered the Raven’s Paradox.
-Hempel, Carl G. “I.—STUDIES IN THE LOGIC OF CONFIRMATION (II.).” Mind, vol. LIV, no. 214, 1945, pp. 97–121. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1093/mind/LIV.214.97. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2Ecyjp9g4 -
Hempel's D-N Model
-Carl G. Hempel (1905-1997)
-1948
-Hempel introduced the D-N model (Deductive-Nomological) which links a conclusion to a law. The D-N Model was a refinement of Hume’s causal model but was still too rigid to account for factors not well defined by a natural law.
-Hempel, Carl G., and Paul Oppenheim. “Studies in the Logic of Explanation.” Philosophy of Science, vol. 15, no. 2, Apr. 1948, pp. 135–75. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1086/286983. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmpEqZQ60n8 -
Learning from unfavorable outcomes
-Carl G. Hempel (1905-1997)
-1966
-Carl Hempel described the process of testing hypothesis and surmised that the results would not provide conclusive evidence which proved the hypothesis was accurate. He continued that even unfavorable outcomes from testing provide some information which can be used to shape a subsequent or revised hypothesis.
-Hempel, Carl. The Psychology of Natural Science. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTFBCn5MIXw