Philosophical Studies 128 (1):109 - 135 (2006)
|Abstract||Nelson Goodman cast the ‘problem of induction’ as the task of articulating the principles and standards by which to distinguish valid from invalid inductive inferences. This paper explores some logical bounds on the ability of a rational reasoner to accomplish this task. By a simple argument, either an inductive inference method cannot admit its own fallibility, or there exists some non-inferable hypothesis whose non-inferability the method cannot infer (violating the principle of ‘negative introspection’). The paper discusses some implications of this limited self-knowledge for the justifiability of inductive inferences, auto-epistemic logic, and the epistemic foundations of game theory.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stuart S. Glennan (1994). Why There Can't Be a Logic of Induction. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:78 - 86.
P. D. Magnus (2008). Demonstrative Induction and the Skeleton of Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315.
Louis E. Loeb (2006). Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume's Argument About Induction. Synthese 152 (3):321 - 338.
John D. Norton (2010). There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
John D. Norton, The Inductive Significance of Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the Last Laugh).
John D. Norton (2003). A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
Stephen Hetherington (2001). Why There Need Not Be Any Grue Problem About Inductive Inference as Such. Philosophy 76 (1):127-136.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #160,368 of 549,085 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?