Graduate studies at Western
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (2):253–271 (2005)
|Abstract||It is widely agreed that Hume's description of human inductive reasoning is inadequate. But many philosophers think that this inadequacy in no way affects the force of Hume's argument for the unjustifiability of inductive reasoning. I argue that this constellation of opinions contains a serious tension, given that Hume was not merely pointing out that induction is fallible. I then explore a recent diagnosis of where Hume's sceptical argument goes wrong, due to Elliott Sober. Sober argues that Hume committed a quantifier-shift fallacy, i.e. inferred a statement of ?? form from one of ?? form. The implications of this diagnosis for the traditional problem of induction are briefly examined|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Samir Okasha (2003). Probabilistic Induction and Hume's Problem: Reply to Lange. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):419–424.
Peter Lipton (2005). Waiting for Hume. In Marina Frasca-Spada & P. J. E. Kail (eds.), Impressions of Hume. Oxford University Press.
Daniel Steel, What If the Principle of Induction is Normative? Means-Ends Epistemology and Hume's Problem.
Michael Rowan (1993). Stove on the Rationality of Induction and the Uniformity Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (3):561-566.
Daniel Steel & S. Kedzie Hall (2011). What If the Principle of Induction Is Normative? Formal Learning Theory and Hume's Problem. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):171-185.
Samir Okasha (2005). Bayesianism and the Traditional Problem of Induction. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):181-194.
Louis E. Loeb (2006). Psychology, Epistemology, and Skepticism in Hume's Argument About Induction. Synthese 152 (3):321 - 338.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #44,841 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,030 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?