Howson, Colin (2011) No answer to Hume. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25 (3). pp. 279-284. ISSN 0269-8595
In a recent article in this journal, Daniel Steel charges me with committing a fallacy in my discussion of inductive rules. I show that the charge is false, and that Steel's own attempt to validate enumerative induction in terms of formal learning theory is itself fallacious. I go on to argue that, contra Steel, formal learning theory is in principle incapable of answering Hume's famous claim that any attempt to justify induction will beg the question.
|Additional Information:||© 2011 The Author|
|Library of Congress subject classification:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BC Logic|
|Sets:||Departments > Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method|
|Date Deposited:||23 May 2013 15:47|
Actions (login required)
|Record administration - authorised staff only|