Popper's Explications of Ad hocness: Circularity, Empirical Content, and Scientific Practice

Popper's explications of 'ad hoc' in relation to hypotheses and explanations turn out to be either trivial, confused or mistaken. One such explication I discuss at length is circularity; another is reduction in empirical content. I argue that non-circularity is preferable to non-ad hocness for an acceptable explanation or explanans, and I isolate some persistent errors in his analysis. Second, Popper is barking up the wrong tree in proscribing reductions in empirical content in novel hypotheses. Such reductions may constitute scientific progress. He fails to show that ad hoc hypothesis are the threat to science he claims.

How important are brain banks for alcohol research?

This article contains the proceedings of a symposium at the 2002 RSA/ISBRA Meeting in San Francisco, organized and chaired by Clive Harper and co-chaired by Izuru Matsumoto. The presentations were (1) Introduction, by Clive Harper; (2) The quality of tissue-a critical issue, by Therese Garrick; (3) The first systematic brain tissue donor program in Japan, by Izuru Matsumoto; (4) Brain scans after death-really! by Adolf Pfefferbaum, Elfar Adalsteinsson, and Edith Sullivan; (5) Capture that (genial) expression, by Joanne Lewohl and Peter Dodd; and (6) Neurochemical/pharmacological studies: experimental design and limitations, by Roger Butterworth.