David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315 (2008)
It has been common wisdom for centuries that scientific inference cannot be deductive; if it is inference at all, it must be a distinctive kind of inductive inference. According to demonstrative theories of induction, however, important scientific inferences are not inductive in the sense of requiring ampliative inference rules at all. Rather, they are deductive inferences with sufficiently strong premises. General considerations about inferences suffice to show that there is no difference in justification between an inference construed demonstratively or ampliatively. The inductive risk may be shouldered by premises or rules, but it cannot be shirked. Demonstrative theories of induction might, nevertheless, better describe scientific practice. And there may be good methodological reasons for constructing our inferences one way rather than the other. By exploring the limits of these possible advantages, I argue that scientific inference is neither of essence deductive nor of essence inductive
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Jonathan Bain (1998). Weinberg on QFT: Demonstrative Induction and Underdetermination. Synthese 117 (1):1-30.
Thomas Bonk (1997). Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Discontinuity and the Determination of Theory by Evidence. Synthese 112 (1):53-73.
Lewis Carroll (1895). What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. Mind 4 (14):278-280.
Jon Dorling (1973). Demonstrative Induction: Its Significant Role in the History of Physics. Philosophy of Science 40 (3):360-372.
Citations of this work BETA
P. D. Magnus (2014). What Scientists Know Is Not a Function of What Scientists Know. Philosophy of Science 80 (5):840-849.
Similar books and articles
Gerard T. Ferrari (1986). The Resolution of Hume's Problem, and New Russellian Antinomies of Induction, Determinism, Relativism, and Skepticism. Philosophy Research Archives 12:471-517.
Stephen Hetherington (2001). Why There Need Not Be Any Grue Problem About Inductive Inference as Such. Philosophy 76 (1):127-136.
Louis E. Loeb (2006). Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume's Argument About Induction. Synthese 152 (3):321 - 338.
John D. Norton, The Inductive Significance of Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the Last Laugh).
F. John Clendinnen (1977). Inference, Practice and Theory. Synthese 34 (1):89 - 132.
John D. Norton (2010). There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
John D. Norton (2003). A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
Carlo Cellucci (2006). The Question Hume Didn't Ask: Why Should We Accept Deductive Inferences? In Carlo Cellucci & Paolo Pecere (eds.), Demonstrative and Non-Demonstrative Reasoning in Mathematics and Natural Science, pp. 137-165. Edizioni dell'Università di Cassino.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #68,757 of 1,089,062 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,062 )
How can I increase my downloads?