Inductive Incompleteness.

Nelson Goodman cast the ‘problem of induction’ as the task of articulating the principles and standards by which to distinguish valid from invalid inductive inferences. This paper explores some logical bounds on the ability of a rational reasoner to accomplish this task. By a simple argument, either...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Philosophical Studies Vol. 128; no. 1; pp. 109 - 136
Main Author: Hild, Matthias
Format: Article
Published: Springer Nature Mar2006
Subjects:
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=19785706&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 19785706
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Mar2006
      vid: 128
      iid: 1
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        19785706
        10.1007/s11098-005-4059-6
      ppf: 109
      ppct: 27
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 293KB
      tig:
        atl: Inductive Incompleteness.
      aug:
        au: Hild, Matthias
        affil: Darden Business School , 100 Darden Blvd Charlottesville 22903-1760 USA
      su:
        Induction (Logic)
        Inference (Logic)
        Logic
        Reasoning
        Game theory
      sug:
        subj:
          Induction (Logic)
          Inference (Logic)
          Logic
          Reasoning
          Game theory
      ab: Nelson Goodman cast the ‘problem of induction’ as the task of articulating the principles and standards by which to distinguish valid from invalid inductive inferences. This paper explores some logical bounds on the ability of a rational reasoner to accomplish this task. By a simple argument, either an inductive inference method cannot admit its own fallibility, or there exists some non-inferable hypothesis whose non-inferability the method cannot infer (violating the principle of ‘negative introspection’). The paper discusses some implications of this limited self-knowledge for the justifiability of inductive inferences, auto-epistemic logic, and the epistemic foundations of game theory.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2006. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2006
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N