Page 19 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES: THEORY AND PRACTICE

relevance, he connected increase or reduction of probability with the positive or

negative sign of it (relevance).
Confirming the relation of a term with others by benefiting of

relevance allows determining the same probability of some hypothesis in

relation to a certain knowledge. The brief point of Keins’ approach is as
follows: There is a H hypothesis and it stands on an certain probability in

relation to any knowledge (A). Then the offer (saying, provision etc.) T is
relevance in relation to A when its (offer’s – T’s) conjunctive connection

changes H probability.
Refusing the conception of inductive probability of Karnap,

K.Gempel [Gempel K. 1977:73] based more correctness of explanation by

“covering laws”. At the same time, he showed that we can interpret only a
certain characteristics (partial) of an occurrence by means of “covering

laws”: this is such a part that connects an occurrence to other occurrences

typical in relation to such occurrence. But M.Skrayven [Drey U. 1977:54-57]
noted possibility of benefiting of inductive probability. He wrote that the

statistic laws do not only find out the necessity of appearance of an explained
or interpreted occurrence, but also not able to clear up the question “why not

other occurrence, but this happened”. Therefore “normative” laws should be
used in explanation of an occurrence: unlike the statistic laws, it allows to

deduct the logic of arising of the interpreted occurrence.

The interpretation of an occurrence (in economic-historic process)
within “normative”, “statistic” and other laws of the approach ways that we

spoke about above briefly, causes a problem of adequacy to reality in
relation to an economic existence. Because:

1. A prior character of “normative”, “covering” or “statistic” laws in
the economic process does not allow reasonably interpreting what the real

view is;

18