This paper begins with a rigorous critique of David Stove's recent bookThe Rationality of Induction. In it, Stove produced four different proofs to refute Hume's sceptical thesis about induction. I show that Stove's attempts to vindicate induction are unsuccessful. Three of his proofs refute theses that are not the sceptical thesis about induction at all. Stove's fourth proof, which uses the sampling principle to justify one particular inductive inference, makes crucial use of an unstated assumption regarding randomness. Once this assumption is made explicit, Hume's thesis once more survives.
The refutation of Stove's fourth proof leads to some observations which relate Goodman's ‘grue’ paradox with randomness of a sample. I formulate a generalized version of Goodman's grue paradox, and argue that whenever a sample, no matter how large, is drawn from a predetermined smaller interval of a population that is distributed over a larger interval, any conclusion drawn about the characteristics of the population based on the observed characteristics of the sample is fatally vulnerable to the generalized grue paradox.
Finally, I argue that the problem of justification of induction can be addressed successfully only from a cognitive point of view, but not from a metaphysical one. That is, we may ask whether an inductive inference is justified or not within the ‘theories’ or ‘cognitive structures’ of a subject, but not outside them. With this realization, induction is seen as a cognitive process, not unlike vision, that is useful at times, and yet has its own illusions that may make it a serious obstacle to cognition at other times.
KeywordsCognitive Process Generalize Version Small Interval Cognitive Structure Large Interval
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barker, S. and P. Achinstein: 1960, ‘On the New Riddle of Induction’,Philosophical Review 69, 511–22.Google Scholar
- Bunch, B. L.: 1980, ‘Rescher on the Goodman Paradox’,Philosophy of Science 47, 119–23.Google Scholar
- Burks, A. W.: 1977,Chance, Cause, Reason, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Feynman, R: 1986, ‘Personal Observations on the Reliability of the Shuttle’, by Richard Feynman, Appendix F, inReport to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Washington, D.C., reprinted in Richard Feynman: 1988,What Do You Care What Other People Think? W. W. Norton, New York, pp. 220–37.Google Scholar
- Goodman, N.: 1955,Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, 3rd ed. (1973), Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
- Goodman, N: 1972,Problems and Projects, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
- Goodman, N: 1978,Ways of Worldmaking, Hackett, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
- Holland, J. H., K. J. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard: 1986,Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Hubel, D. H.: 1988,Eye, Brain and Vision, Scientific American Library, W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
- Hume, D.: 1739,A Treatise of Human Nature, Penguin Classics Edition (1987).Google Scholar
- Indurkhya, B: 1989,Metaphor and Cognition, manuscript, Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
- Keynes, J. M.: 1921,A Treatise on Probability, MacMillan, London.Google Scholar
- Kolers, P. A.: 1972,Aspects of Motion Perception, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Newman, J. R.: 1956,The World of Mathematics, Volume 2, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J.: 1967,Biology and Knowledge, translation by B. Walsh (1971), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. R.: 1959,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
- Rescher, N.: 1976, ‘Peirce and the Economy of Research’,Philosophy of Science 43, 71–98.Google Scholar
- Salmon, W. C.: 1966,The Foundations of Scientific Inference, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
- Shirley, E. S.: 1981, ‘An Unnoticed Flaw in Barker and Achinstein's Solution to Goodman's New Riddle of Induction’,Philosophy of Science 48, 611–17.Google Scholar
- Stove, D. C.: 1986,The Rationality of Induction, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Wallace, B. and A. M. Srb: 1964,Adaptation, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Weitzenfeld, J. S.: 1984, ‘Valid Reasoning by Analogy’,Philosophy of Science 51, 137–49.Google Scholar
- Williams, D.: 1947,The Ground of Induction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; republished by Russell & Russell, 1963.Google Scholar