The inductive significance of observationally indistinguishable spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the last laugh)
| Abstract | 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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesRoger White (2005). Explanation as a Guide to Induction. Philosophers' Imprint 5 (2):1-29.
Peter Achinstein (1962). The Circularity of a Self-Supporting Inductive Argument. Analysis 22 (6):138 - 141.
P. D. Magnus (2008). Demonstrative Induction and the Skeleton of Inference. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):303 – 315.
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-05-23Total downloads29 ( #42,467 of 549,753 )Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #10,483 of 549,753 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
