Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Granting the use of abduction does not ensure that approx... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Boyd's abductive argument for scientific methodology's reliability still stands

    Granting the use of abduction does not ensure that approximate truth of background theories is the best explanation of scientific methodology's success

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Notable Defenders

    Stathis PsilloscontemporaryPsillos 1999, Ch. 4
    Richard Braithwaite

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    modern

    Related

    A rule-circular argument is not vicious when the rule used does not guarantee a ...Boyd concludes that background theories on which scientific methodology relies a...Boyd's abductive argument for scientific methodology's reliability still standsThe use of abduction in Boyd's argument does not guarantee the truth of Boyd's c...

    Similar

    In Boyd's argument, the use of abduction does not guarantee that the b...97%Boyd concludes that background theories on which scientific methodolog...83%The theories underlying scientific methodology were mostly arrived at ...83%The use of abduction in Boyd's argument does not guarantee the truth o...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: abduction
    View source passageHide passage
    To this, Stathis Psillos (1999, Ch. 4) has responded by invoking a distinction credited to Richard Braithwaite, to wit, the distinction between premise-circularity and rule-circularity. An argument is premise-circular if its conclusion is amongst its premises. A rule-circular argument, by contrast, is an argument of which the conclusion asserts something about an inferential rule that is used in the very same argument. As Psillos urges, Boyd’s argument is rule-circular, but not premise-circular,

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective