[lit-ideas] Re: A viable theory of induction
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
A post of mine had suggested we are nowhere nearer a viable theory of induction
(than we ever were).
In reply, JLS writes:
I think 'induction' plays a role, as does 'deduction' and 'abduction'.
There is science and there is science. A historian may consider that he deals
with individual testable statements ("Queen Mary Stuart was beheaded") and
arrive inductively at some ("Scots queens called Mary Stuarts often get
beheaded."). Cosmology may also use induction: Halley thought he was arriving
inductively to his conclusion about when his comet will be seen.>
This reply, and the rest of JLS' reply, contain no viable theory of induction
[a theory that, for example, answers Hume's critique of induction as not
"logical"] - nor the semblance of an argument showing how or why we are nearer
to such a theory. Rather it is an inductivist's (mere) confession of faith and
one denuded of clarity as to what exact form of "logic" is being defended and
how.
If this kind of reply is adequate, we might also say not worrying our pretty
little heads about Hume's critique also suffices.
DL
Other related posts:
