Graduate studies at Western
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (2):151-168 (2008)
|Abstract||Abstract: According to Laurence BonJour, the problem of induction can be solved by recognizing the a priori necessity that inductive conclusions constitute the best explanations of inductive premises. I defend an interpretation of the key probability claims BonJour makes about inductive premises and show that they are not susceptible to many of the objections that have been lodged against them. I then argue that these purportedly necessary probability claims nevertheless remain deeply problematic and that, as a result, BonJour's proposal fails to provide a satisfactory resolution of the problem of induction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Cargile (1998). The Problem of Induction. Philosophy 73 (2):247-275.
John D. Norton (2003). A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
James R. Beebe (2007). BonJour's Abductivist Reply to Skepticism. Philosophia 35 (2):181-196.
Audun Öfsti (1962). Some Problems of Counter‐Inductive Policy as Opposed to Inductive. Inquiry 5 (1-4):267-283.
John D. Norton (2010). There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
Jared Bates (2005). The Old Problem of Induction and the New Reflective Equilibrium. Dialectica 59 (3):347–356.
Nicholas Maxwell (1979). Induction, Simplicity and Scientific Progress. Scientia 114:629-653.
Chase B. Wrenn (2006). Inter-World Probability and the Problem of Induction. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (3):387–402.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,736 of 725,792 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 725,792 )
How can I increase my downloads?