Adam Grobler

The relevance of the Popperian heritage to the internalism-externalism issue is explored. First, the nature of the controversy between Popper and his disciples, Watkins and Zahar, about basic statements is discussed. Popper's resistance to Watkins' and Zahar's elaborations is suggested to be motivated by his implicit antiinternalist attitude that is misnamed by him as antipsychologism. Next, instead of a conventionalist, an externalist reading of Popper's mention about the role of a „scientific jury” in accepting basic statements is offered. It is doubtful, however, whether Popper can be considered an externalist, for he rejects the concept of justified belief altogether. Still, it is suggested that future elaboration of his ideas may help to explain away the circularity apparent in Goldman's reliabilism and arrive at a more tenable form of externalism.

requirement with non-falsity requirement in the tripartite definition of knowledge. This move can be used to explain the difference between outdated knowledge and mere superstition and to solve some problems about the epistemic closure. In this regard, it is claimed that the present offer improves upon Nozick's conditional theory of knowledge and Dretske's relevant alternatives approach. Next, an attempt to elucidate Wittgenstein's and Wioniewski's anti-sceptical strategies is made. Finally, the prospects of avoiding circularities in reliabilism are indicated

In the paper I explore some hints one can find in an updated version of Ajdukiewicz’s radical conventionalism that may help to resolve some controversies within hinge epistemology, i.e. a family of positions that invoke Wittgenstein’s idea of groundless grounds of knowledge. In particular I put into doubt whether there is a real difference between pragmatic and transcendental justification of hinges, I reject epistemological disjunctivism, and I argue for anti-realistic reading of truth in a context determined by particular hinges while retaining the classical notion of truth as a regulative idea of knowledge that governs the possible revisions of hinges.

In the paper I present my path towards the sandwich theory of knowledge, which I have been travelling for about three decades. It started from a modest remark by R. Wójcicki who drew my attention to the concept of presupposition. This concept played an important role in my analyses of the growth of science, which I have been occupied with for much of my career. At that time I was also impressed by A. Wiśniewski’s erotetic logic. Later, I took more interest in epistemology, first for teaching, subsequently also for study. I point also to other sources of inspiration: Ajdukiewicz, Hintikka, Popper, Putnam, and Wittgenstein.

To prevent possible misunderstanding, let me start from one crucial distinction between the logic of science on the one hand and the use of logic in science on the other. The very phrase “inference to the best theory” and the style of its further explication may suggest that it is the former that is at issue. In contrast, the title of the present workshop, “Induction and deduction in the sciences”, suggests the latter to be its focus. And this I find to point to the more adequate way of thinking about the relation between logic and science. I do not believe in “the logic of science” as something that can possibly be read off science in a manner analogous to that of reading logic off mathematics: the classical logic off the classical mathematics or the intuitionistic logic off the intuitionistic mathematics

To prevent possible misunderstanding, let me start from one crucial distinction between the logic of science on the one hand and the use of logic in science on the other. The very phrase “inference to the best theory” and the style of its further explication may suggest that it is the former that is at issue. In contrast, the title of the present workshop, “Induction and deduction in the sciences”, suggests the latter to be its focus. And this I find to point to the more adequate way of thinking about the relation between logic and science. I do not believe in “the logic of science” as something that can possibly be read off science in a manner analogous to that of reading logic off mathematics: the classical logic off the classical mathematics or the intuitionistic logic off the intuitionistic mathematics.