Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 4, pp 671–690 | Cite as

A material dissolution of the problem of induction

  • John D. Norton
Article

Abstract

In a formal theory of induction, inductive inferences are licensed by universal schemas. In a material theory of induction, inductive inferences are licensed by facts. With this change in the conception of the nature of induction, I argue that the celebrated “problem of induction” can no longer be set up and is thereby dissolved. Attempts to recreate the problem in the material theory of induction fail. They require relations of inductive support to conform to an unsustainable, hierarchical empiricism.

Keywords

Problem of induction Material theory of induction Infinite regress 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Jim Bogen for comments and for first suggesting that I apply the material approach to the problem of induction; for much stimulating discussion from Peter Achinstein, Thomas Kelly and John Worrall at a symposium at PSA 2008; for discussion by the Center for Philosophy of Science Reading Group, April 12, 2010 (Natalie Gold, Slobodan Perovic, Wolfgang Pietsch, Susan Sterrett, Tad Szubka); and from Anil Gupta.

References

  1. Black, M. (1967). Induction. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 4, pp. 169–181). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bonjour, L. (2002). Internalism and externalism. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 234–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Earman, J., & Salmon, W. (1992). The confirmation of scientific hypotheses. In M. H. Salmon (Ed.), Introduction to the philosophy of science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Einstein, A. (1918). Principles of research. In Ideas and opinions (p. 1954). New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  5. Fumerton, R. (2002). Theories of justification. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 204–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Goldman, A. I. (2002). The sciences and epistemology. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of epistemology (pp. 144–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hempel, C. (1965). The theoretician’s dilemma. In Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 173–226). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Howson, C. (2000). Hume’s problem: Induction and the justification of belief. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaplan, M. (1998). Induction, epistemic issues in. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy (pp. 745–752). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, T. (2010). Hume, Norton and induction without rules. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 754–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mach, E. (1986). The economical nature of physical inquiry, In T. J. McCormack (Trans.), Popular scientific lectures, (5th ed.). La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  12. Mill, J. S. (1872). A system of logic (8th ed.). London: Longman, Green, and Co. (1916).Google Scholar
  13. Moser, P. K. (Ed.). (2002). The Oxford handbook of epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Neurath, O. (1921). Anti-Spengler. In M. Neurath & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Empiricism and sociology (pp. 158–213). ( P. Foulkes & M. Neurath, Trans.). Dordrecht: Reidel. (1973).Google Scholar
  15. Newton, I. (1729). Sir Isaac Newton’s mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world. (A. Motte, Trans., F. Cajori, Revised). Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Norton, J. D. (2003). A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science, 70, 647–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton, J. D. (2005). A little survey of induction. In P. Achinstein (Ed.), Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories and applications (pp. 25–31). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 9–34.Google Scholar
  18. Norton, J. D. (2010). There are no universal rules for induction. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norton, J. D. (2011). History of science and the material theory of induction: Einstein’s quanta, mercury’s perihelion. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper, L. (1959). Logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  21. Okasha, S. (2005). Does Hume’s Argument against induction rest on a quantifier-shift fallacy? In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105, 237–255.Google Scholar
  22. Salmon, W. (1966). The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sellars, W. (1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota, studies in the philosophy of science. Volume I: The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis (pp. 253–329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Worrall, J. (2010). For universal rules, against induction. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 740–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Center for Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations