Not Much Has Changed. A Rejoinder to Raclavský
Not Much Has Changed. A Rejoinder to Raclavský

Summary/Abstract: It is disappointing that Raclavský’s forthright paper (2007) does not (to my mind, at least) advance significantly the discussion of the problem of verisimilitude. What it does is erroneously to identify as erroneous a number of assertions made, or imagined to have been made, in my various critical excursions (from 1974 to 2006) against the various definitions of verisimilitude proposed by the late Pavel Tichý. Although many of Raclavský’s mistakes have been exposed and put right by Taliga (2008), to whom I am greatly indebted, I should like to add something here about three points of disagreement. Sections 2 and 3 deal with what seem to me to be misunderstandings on Raclavský’s part. Section 4 reaches the centre of the dispute between Tichý and myself. In section 5 it will be explained why the positions that Raclavský and I occupy in matters of semantics are closer together than he supposes, so that the bulk of his censure is de trop. Unattributed page references are references to Raclavský (2007).

• Details
• Contents