Abstract
This chapter discusses ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses that have long worried philosophers of science, because they suggest a slippery slope towards unfalsifiability. If any theory can be rescued in the face of disconfirmation by changing auxiliary how to never be wrong assumptions, how can someone tell good theories from bad theories? The chapter cites the basic problem posed by several examples, which is how to assign credit or blame to central hypotheses vs. auxiliary hypotheses. It highlights an influential view known as the Duhem-Quine thesis, which asserts that the credit-assignment problem is insoluble and central and auxiliary hypotheses must face observational data as a corporate body. This thesis implies that theories will be resistant to disconfirmation as long as they have recourse to ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
