Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Defence of the Naive Inductivist: As Well as Some of Their Not-so-Naive Brethren

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Alan Chalmers, in What ius this thing called Science?, presents inductivism as a naïve view of science which has been disproved. However, the arguments he bases this conclusion on either depend upon a stilted view of inductivism or affect a very broad range of positions, including Chalmers' own. I argue that a broadly inductivist view of science, including its observational base, is precisely the approach required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Chalmers, A. F.: 1982, What is This Thing Called Science? (second edition), University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C.: 1966, The Foundations of Scientific Inference, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Monash University, Clayton, Vic, 3168, Australia

    Konrad Talmont-Kaminski

Authors
  1. Konrad Talmont-Kaminski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Talmont-Kaminski, K. In Defence of the Naive Inductivist: As Well as Some of Their Not-so-Naive Brethren. Science & Education 8, 441–447 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008682420648

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008682420648

Keywords

Search

Navigation