METACONFIRMATION

When is it possible to decide that a theory is confirmed by the availa ble evidence? Probabilities seem first to be the good framework for ad dressing this question. But the philosophers of science did not succee d in building any probabilistic criterion of confirmation beyond dispu te. We examine two of the main reasons for this failure. First, the pr inciples of adequacy used by philosophers are often logically inconsis tent with each other. We show in the paper how to build consistent sub sets of these principles. We identify three main subsets which embody the principles of adequacy for two main kinds of confirmation, namely the relative confirmation and the absolute confirmation. Second, we pr ove the impossibility of building any probabilistic criterion for abso lute confirmation.