Eine Ko-Publikation von The Hebrew University Magnes Press and De Gruyter.

A new approach to Hume's problem of induction that justifies the optimality of induction at the level of meta-induction. Hume's problem of justifying induction has been among epistemology's greatest challenges for centuries. In this book, Gerhard Schurz proposes a new approach to Hume's problem. Acknowledging the force of Hume's arguments against the possibility of a noncircular justification of the reliability of induction, Schurz demonstrates instead the possibility of a noncircular justification of the optimality of induction, or, more precisely, of (...) meta-induction (the application of induction to competing prediction models). Drawing on discoveries in computational learning theory, Schurz demonstrates that a regret-based learning strategy, attractivity-weighted meta-induction, is predictively optimal in all possible worlds among all prediction methods accessible to the epistemic agent. Moreover, the a priori justification of meta-induction generates a noncircular a posteriori justification of object induction. Taken together, these two results provide a noncircular solution to Hume's problem. Schurz discusses the philosophical debate on the problem of induction, addressing all major attempts at a solution to Hume's problem and describing their shortcomings; presents a series of theorems, accompanied by a description of computer simulations illustrating the content of these theorems (with proofs presented in a mathematical appendix); and defends, refines, and applies core insights regarding the optimality of meta-induction, explaining applications in neighboring disciplines including forecasting sciences, cognitive science, social epistemology, and generalized evolution theory. Finally, Schurz generalizes the method of optimality-based justification to a new strategy of justification in epistemology, arguing that optimality justifications can avoid the problems of justificatory circularity and regress. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

During a conference entitled “Un logicien consciencieux. La philosophie de Evert Willem Beth,” held in Nancy in 1998 and published in this journal, volume 3, cahier 4 [Barth, Heinzmann et al. 1998-1999], the participants regretted that a reasoned biography of Beth was not available. In view of the efforts made since then in this direction, in particular by Paul van Ulsen in his PhD thesis in Dutch [2000], this article attempts to provide an overview of Beth’s work for a broader (...) community of philosophers of science. However, my focus is not so much on Beth’s widely discussed and important contributions to mathematical logic, where his most creative merits reside. My aim is to emphasize Beth’s philosophical and cultural background. Both are also discussed in the first two chapters of Ulsen’s thesis, which globally focuses on Beth’s work in logic. Of course, philosophical and scientific aspects cannot be systematically separated, but Beth’s influence on the philosophy of mathematics between the 1950s and 1960s seems to me large enough to highlight it here. Beth is one of the very few philosophers who also presented highly technically relevant results in logic, or one of the few logicians who also wrote philosophical papers, not only in his youth or old age, but throughout his career. In his 741-page magnum opus The Foundations of Mathematics [1959], he combines the treatment of philosophical and logico-mathematical problems under the perspective that the traditional deductive procedure is an essential and not merely incidental element in mathematical proof so that “logic must play the principal role in a philosophical examination of mathematical thought” [1959, XI]. By 1937, Beth was “convinced that the only possibility of founding mathematics in a truly satisfactory way is to apply intuitive and formal methods simultaneously in such a way that they can control and verify each other” (“L’évidence intuitive dans les mathématiques modernes” [1937, 165]). In 1956, he still justified the emphasis on the intuitive element of proof by “certain complications that the development of these [formalist] tendencies would later give rise to” (“Poincaré et la philosophie” [1956b, 238, transl. G. H.]). (shrink)

This volume offers a reappraisal of Donald Davidson's influential philosophy of thought, meaning, and language, Twelve specially written essays by leading philosophers in the field illuminate a range of themes and problems relating to these ...

Gerhard Preyer rekonstruiert in diesem essential den harten Kern von Shmuel N. Eisenstadts allgemeiner Soziologie, wie Eisenstadt sie in der Untersuchung der Beziehung zwischen Handeln (Kreativität) und Struktur sowie zwischen Kultur und Sozialstruktur durchgeführt hat. Preyer ordnet seine Untersuchung in dem von ihm sogenannten „semantischen Map“ als eine evolutionäre Universalie des „konstitutiven basalen Bezugsrahmens“ der Erforschung der sozio-strukturellen Evolution an. Aus Eisenstadts Sicht legen die grundlegenden semantischen Maps das zentrale Problem der menschlichen und der sozialen Existenz, die Spezifikation ihrer (...) Lösungen und die Beziehung zu den grundlegenden Annahmen über die soziale Ordnung fest. Das Semantic Map und der Kampf um die Verteilung von Ressourcen ist der forschungsprogrammatische Bezugsrahmen seiner Reformulierung der Modernisierungstheorie, der Kritik an der klassischen Modernisierungstheorie als einer Konvergenztheorie und seiner Fassung des Problems der sozialen Ordnung. Die Studie wird mit einer Modifikation von Eisenstadts Ansatz einer mitgliedschaftstheoretischen Reinterpretation abgeschlossen. (shrink)