|Abstract||This essay defends the view that inductive reasoning involves following inductive rules against objections that inductive rules are undesirable because they ignore background knowledge and unnecessary because Bayesianism is not an inductive rule. I propose that inductive rules be understood as sets of functions from data to hypotheses that are intended as solutions to inductive problems. According to this proposal, background knowledge is important in the application of inductive rules and Bayesianism qualifies as an inductive rule. Finally, I consider a Bayesian formulation of inductive skepticism suggested by Lange. I argue that while there is no good Bayesian reason for judging this inductive skeptic irrational, the approach I advocate indicates a straightforward reason not to be an inductive skeptic.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Patrick Maher (2006). The Concept of Inductive Probability. Erkenntnis 65 (2):185 - 206.
Michael Strevens (2004). Bayesian Confirmation Theory: Inductive Logic, or Mere Inductive Framework? Synthese 141 (3):365 - 379.
Wesley C. Salmon (1977). Hempel's Conception of Inductive Inference in Inductive-Statistical Explanation. Philosophy of Science 44 (2):179-185.
David H. Sanford (1990). The Inductive Support of Inductive Rules: Themes From Max Black. Dialectica 44 (1‐2):23-41.
Cory Juhl (1993). Bayesianism and Reliable Scientific Inquiry. Philosophy of Science 60 (2):302-319.
Romeyn, J.-W. (2004). Hypotheses and Inductive Predictions. Synthese 141 (3):333-364.
F. Bergadano (1993). Machine Learning and the Foundations of Inductive Inference. Minds and Machines 3 (1):31-51.
Roger White (2005). Explanation as a Guide to Induction. Philosophers' Imprint 5 (2):1-29.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #57,791 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,873 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?