The inductive significance of observationally indistinguishable spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the last laugh)
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
For several years, through the “material theory of induction,” I have urged that inductive inferences are not licensed by universal schemas, but by material facts that hold only locally (Norton, 2003, 2005). My goal has been to defend inductive inference against inductive skeptics by demonstrating when and how inductive inferences are properly made. Since I have always admired Peter Achinstein as a staunch defender of induction, it was a surprise when Peter..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Norton (2010). Deductively Definable Logies of Induction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (6):617 - 654.
John D. Norton (2010). There Are No Universal Rules for Induction. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
John D. Norton (2013). A Material Dissolution of the Problem of Induction. Synthese 191 (4):1-20.
P. D. Magnus (2008). Demonstrative Induction and the Skeleton of Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315.
Peter Achinstein (1962). The Circularity of a Self-Supporting Inductive Argument. Analysis 22 (6):138 - 141.
Roger White (2005). Explanation as a Guide to Induction. Philosophers' Imprint 5 (2):1-29.
John D. Norton (2003). A Material Theory of Induction. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):647-670.
Added to index2009-05-23
Total downloads30 ( #49,079 of 1,089,053 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,053 )
How can I increase my downloads?