Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:50:24.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inductive Immodesty and Lawlikeness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Juhani Pietarinen*
Affiliation:
University of Turku

Extract

David Lewis [2] suggests that an adequate inductive method should be immodest, i.e. recommend itself as at least as accurate as any of its rivals. On this basis he works out a solution to the intricate problem of choosing among Carnap's λ-methods. Lewis himself points out certain undesirable consequences of his solution. I will argue that the solution breaks down for a more general reason than that indicated by Lewis; like other procedures for estimating degrees of belief I am familiar with, it overlooks the component of lawlikeness of inductive situations. This is not to object to the requirement of immodesty; I only want to draw attention to certain assumptions which Lewis makes in deriving his equations and which seem to be unjustified.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Carnap, R.Inductive Logic and Inductive Intuition.” in The Problem of Inductive Logic. Edited by Lakatos, I. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1968. Pages 258267.10.1016/S0049-237X(08)71047-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Lewis, D.Immodest Inductive Methods.” Philosophy of Science 38 (1971): 5463.10.1086/288339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Pietarinen, J. Lawlikeness, Analogy, and Inductive Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 26. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1972.Google Scholar