Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 327–340 | Cite as

Induction and Natural Necessities



Some philosophers who believe that there are necessary connections in nature take it that an advantage of their commitment is that the problem of induction is solved. This paper aims to offer a comprehensive refutation of the arguments necessitarians use to show that if natural necessities are posited, then there is no problem of induction. In section 2, two models of natural necessity are presented. The “Contingent Natural Necessity” section examines David Armstrong’s explanationist ‘solution’ to the problem of induction. The “Natural Necessity and IBE” section looks in detail into the claim that natural necessity is the best explanation of observed regularity. The “Dispositional Essentialism to the Rescue?” section moves on to Brian Ellis’s dispositional essentialist ‘solution’. The “Sankey’s Helping Hand” section examines Howard Sankey’s attempt to blend dispositional essentialism and explanationism.


Natural necessity Induction  Laws Inference to the best explanation Armstrong Ellis 



Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the seminar of Science and Technology Studies Dept of UCL (London, November 2015); the Logos Group (Barcelona, January 2016) and as a keynote speech in the 2nd conference of the German Philosophy of Science Society (GWP) (Dusseldorf, March 2016). Many thanks are due to various members of the audience for generous and helpful comments. Sincere thanks too go to two anonymous readers of this journal.


  1. Aristotle. (1991). In J. Barnes (Ed.), Complete works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. (1983). What is a law of nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beebee, H. (2011). Necessary connections and the problem of induction. Nous, 45, 504–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castro, E. (2014). On induction: Time-limited necessity versus timeless necessity. Teorema, 33, 67–82.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, B. (2001). Scientific essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Foster, J. (1983). Induction, explanation and natural necessity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 83, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kornblith, H. (1993). Inductive inference and its natural ground. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks truth. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Psillos, S. (2002). Simply the best: A case for abduction. In A. C. Kakas & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational logic: From logic programming into the future, LNAI 2408 (pp. 605–625). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar
  11. Psillos, S. (2015). Induction and natural necessity in the middle ages. Philosophical Inquiry, 39, 92–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sankey, H. (1997). Induction and natural kinds. Principia, 1, 239–254.Google Scholar
  13. Smart, B. T. H. (2013). Is the humean defeated by induction. Philosophical Studies, 162, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tahko, T. (2015). Natural kind essentialism revisited. Mind, 24, 795–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and History of ScienceUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations