Turning the tables on Hume.

Certain prior credence distributions concerning the future lead to inductivism, and others lead to inductive skepticism. I argue that it is difficult to consider the latter to be reasonable. I do not prove that they are not, but at the end of the paper, the tables are turned: in line with pre-philos...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Studies Vol. 181; no. 10; pp. 2797 - 2817
Autor principal: Hansen, Casper Storm
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Oct2024
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=180402807&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 180402807
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2024
      vid: 181
      iid: 10
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        180402807
        10.1007/s11098-024-02197-5
      ppf: 2797
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 876KB
      tig:
        atl: Turning the tables on Hume.
      aug:
        au: Hansen, Casper Storm
        affil: Copenhagen, Denmark
      su:
        Skepticism
        Induction (Logic)
        Intuition
        Possibility
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Skepticism
          Induction (Logic)
          Intuition
          Possibility
          Philosophy
      ab: Certain prior credence distributions concerning the future lead to inductivism, and others lead to inductive skepticism. I argue that it is difficult to consider the latter to be reasonable. I do not prove that they are not, but at the end of the paper, the tables are turned: in line with pre-philosophical intuitions, inductivism has retaken its place as the most reasonable default position, while the skeptic is called on to supply a novel argument for his. The reason is as follows. There are certain possibilities concerning the functioning of the world that, if assigned positive credence, support inductivism. Prima facie, one might think that the alternatives to those possibilities, if assigned similar or more credence, cancel out that support. However, I argue that it is plausible that reasonable credence distributions are such that the alternatives at most cancel themselves out, and thus leave the support for inductivism intact.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2024. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2024
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N