Philosophy of Science 57 (1):78-95 (1990)
|Abstract||A computational theory of induction must be able to identify the projectible predicates, that is to distinguish between which predicates can be used in inductive inferences and which cannot. The problems of projectibility are introduced by reviewing some of the stumbling blocks for the theory of induction that was developed by the logical empiricists. My diagnosis of these problems is that the traditional theory of induction, which started from a given (observational) language in relation to which all inductive rules are formulated, does not go deep enough in representing the kind of information used in inductive inferences. As an interlude, I argue that the problem of induction, like so many other problems within AI, is a problem of knowledge representation. To the extent that AI-systems are based on linguistic representations of knowledge, these systems will face basically the same problems as did the logical empiricists over induction. In a more constructive mode, I then outline a non-linguistic knowledge representation based on conceptual spaces. The fundamental units of these spaces are "quality dimensions". In relation to such a representation it is possible to define "natural" properties which can be used for inductive projections. I argue that this approach evades most of the traditional problems|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John D. Norton (2003). A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
Peter Gardenfors (2004). Conceptual Spaces as a Framework for Knowledge Representation. Mind and Matter 2 (2):9-27.
Massimiliano Badino (2004). An Application of Information Theory to the Problem of the Scientific Experiment. Synthese 140 (3):355 - 389.
Audun Öfsti (1962). Some Problems of Counter‐Inductive Policy as Opposed to Inductive. Inquiry 5 (1-4):267-283.
F. Bergadano (1993). Machine Learning and the Foundations of Inductive Inference. Minds and Machines 3 (1):31-51.
John D. Norton, The Inductive Significance of Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the Last Laugh).
D. C. Stove (1986). The Rationality of Induction. Oxford University Press.
Alex McLean (2010). Unifying Conceptual Spaces: Concept Formation in Musical Creative Systems. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (4):503-532.
John D. Norton (2010). There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #81,741 of 722,869 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,869 )
How can I increase my downloads?