Philosophia Naturalis 45 (1):37-46 (2008)
In this essay, I take the role as friendly commentator and call attention to three potential worries for John D. Norton’s material theory of induction. I attempt to show that his “principle argument” is based on a false dichotomy, that the idea that facts ultimately derive their license from matters of fact is debatable, and that one of the core implications of his theory is untenable for historical and fundamental reasons
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
History of Science and the Material Theory of Induction: Einstein's Quanta, Mercury's Perihelion. [REVIEW]John D. Norton - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):3-27.
There Are No Universal Rules for Induction.John D. Norton - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):765-777.
The Facts of the Matter: A Discussion of Norton's Material Theory of Induction.Daniel Steel - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (1):188-197.
Formal and Material Theories in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Interpretation.Alan C. Love - 2010 - In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), Epsa Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. pp. 175--185.
The Inductive Significance of Observationally Indistinguishable Spacetimes: (Peter Achinstein has the Last Laugh).John D. Norton - unknown -
A Material Dissolution of the Problem of Induction.John D. Norton - 2013 - Synthese 191 (4):1-20.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #95,214 of 2,132,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #289,567 of 2,132,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.