David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Minds and Machines 14 (4):433-440 (2004)
I consider three aspects in which machine learning and philosophy of science can illuminate each other: methodology, inductive simplicity and theoretical terms. I examine the relations between the two subjects and conclude by claiming these relations to be very close.
|Keywords||inductive simplicity machine learning method philosophy of science theoretical terms|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Reza Zamani (2010). An Object-Oriented View on Problem Representation as a Search-Efficiency Facet: Minds Vs. Machines. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (1):103-117.
Similar books and articles
Malcolm R. Forster (1999). How Do Simple Rules `Fit to Reality' in a Complex World? Minds and Machines 9 (4):543-564.
David Corfield (2010). Varieties of Justification in Machine Learning. Minds and Machines 20 (2):291-301.
Martin Možina, Jure Žabkar, Trevor Bench-Capon & Ivan Bratko (2005). Argument Based Machine Learning Applied to Law. Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):53-73.
S. Russell (1991). Inductive Learning by Machines. Philosophical Studies 64 (October):37-64.
Jon Williamson (2004). A Dynamic Interaction Between Machine Learning and the Philosophy of Science. Minds and Machines 14 (4):539-549.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #106,421 of 1,099,722 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #49,602 of 1,099,722 )
How can I increase my downloads?