Howson, Colin (2011) No answer to Hume. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25 (3). pp. 279-284. ISSN 0269-8595
Full text not available from this repository.
Identification Number: 10.1080/02698595.2011.605249
Abstract
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.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Official URL: | http://www.tandfonline.com/action/aboutThisJournal... |
| Additional Information: | © 2011 The Author |
| Divisions: | Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method |
| Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BC Logic |
| Date Deposited: | 23 May 2013 15:47 |
| Last Modified: | 13 Sep 2024 23:13 |
| URI: | http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/50302 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
