Another shot at the canons of induction

Mind 84 (334):177-191 (1975)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

On the three most widely discussed contemporary justifications of induction, the inductive justification, the pragmatic justification, and the analytic justification (or dissolution of the problem), none has received widespread acceptance. There are specific problems with each of these approaches and a general problem that affects all three. The purpose of this paper is to provide a fourth justification of induction which is less problematic than or at least problematic in different ways from-the three traditional justifications.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Some problems of counter‐inductive policy as opposed to inductive.Audun Öfsti - 1962 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 5 (1-4):267-283.
Mohist canons.Chris Fraser - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Inquiry as a transcendental activity.A. C. Genova - 1967 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 10 (1-4):1 – 20.
Note on Induction.Ted Parent - 2013 - Think 12 (33):37-39.
Associate Professor of Religion.Jane Geaney - 1999 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 19 (1):1-11.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
31 (#504,675)

6 months
9 (#295,075)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ken Friedman
Swinburne University of Technology

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references