Philosophers' Imprint 7 (2):1-5 (2007)
|Abstract||Does the past rationally bear on the future? David Hume argued that we lack good reason to think that it does. He insisted in particular that we lack — and forever will lack — anything like a demonstrative proof of such a rational bearing. A surprising mathematical result can be read as an invitation to reconsider Hume's confidence.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Harriman (2010). The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. New American Library.
Bipin Indurkhya (1990). Some Remarks on the Rationality of Induction. Synthese 85 (1):95 - 114.
Carlo Cellucci (2008). Why Proof? What is a Proof? In Giovanna Corsi & Rossella Lupacchini (eds.), Deduction, Computation, Experiment. Exploring the Effectiveness of Proof, pp. 1-27. Springer.
David S. Gunderson (2010). Handbook of Mathematical Induction: Theory and Applications. Chapman & Hall/Crc.
Gregory Landini (1996). The Definability of the Set of Natural Numbers in the 1925 Principia Mathematica. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (6):597 - 615.
James Franklin (1996). Proof in Mathematics. Quakers Hill Press.
Daniel Steel & S. Kedzie Hall (2011). What If the Principle of Induction Is Normative? Formal Learning Theory and Hume's Problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):171-185.
Andrew Aberdein (2006). Proofs and Rebuttals: Applying Stephen Toulmin's Layout of Arguments to Mathematical Proof. In Marta Bílková & Ondřej Tomala (eds.), The Logica Yearbook 2005. Filosofia.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #90,445 of 722,750 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,750 )
How can I increase my downloads?