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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that No argument can justify projecting observed patterns onto unobserved cases (the problem of induction).

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Any justification for inductive reasoning must appeal to either an inductive argument or a deductive argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Appealing to an inductive argument to justify induction would be unacceptably circular.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A deductive argument justifying induction would have to show that unobserved instances will resemble observed ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of observations logically determines a unique projectable pattern (PI §201).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodman's 'grue' paradox demonstrates that infinitely many mutually incompatible predicates are equally consistent with any finite body of evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If logic alone cannot select which regularities to project, no argument can provide non-circular justification for any particular inductive projection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume established that the Uniformity of Nature principle is itself only knowable through induction, making all deductive reconstructions beg the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reichenbach's pragmatic vindication and Strawson's ordinary-language dissolution both concede that induction cannot be justified in the traditional sense, only normalized.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.