more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The inductive defence of induction may be circular but not viciously so, because it is rule circular (defending the rule being used) but not premise circular (where the conclusion is in one of the premises).
Gist of Idea
Inductive defences of induction may be rule-circular, but not viciously premise-circular
Source
J Ladyman / D Ross (Every Thing Must Go [2007], 2.1.2)
Book Ref
Ladyman,J/Ross,D: 'Every Thing Must Go' [OUP 2007], p.75
A Reaction
[They cite Braithwaite 1953 and Carnap 1952 for this] This strikes me as clutching at straws, when the whole procedure of induction is inescapably precarious. It is simply all we have available.
Related Idea
Idea 16858 We can argue to support our beliefs, so induction will support induction, for believers in induction [Lipton]
| 3033 | Induction moves from some truths to similar ones, by contraries or consequents [Diog. Laertius] |
| 6350 | Premises can support an argument without entailing it [Pollock/Cruz on Hume] |
| 3598 | Hume just shows induction isn't deduction [Williams,M on Hume] |
| 13055 | Good induction needs 'total evidence' - the absence at the time of any undermining evidence [Salmon] |
| 3860 | Science cannot be shown to be rational if induction is rejected [Newton-Smith on Popper] |
| 6953 | All reasoning is inductive, and deduction only concerns implication [Harman] |
| 3251 | Observed regularities are only predictable if we assume hidden necessity [Nagel] |
| 16800 | An inductive inference is underdetermined, by definition [Lipton] |
| 16858 | We can argue to support our beliefs, so induction will support induction, for believers in induction [Lipton] |
| 4811 | Induction (unlike deduction) is non-monotonic - it can be invalidated by new premises [Psillos] |
| 4583 | How can an argument be good induction, but poor deduction? [Baggini /Fosl] |
| 14914 | Inductive defences of induction may be rule-circular, but not viciously premise-circular [Ladyman/Ross] |