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
    The Nomological-Explanatory solution to the problem of in... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Nomological-Explanatory solution to the problem of induction begs the question

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.IBE's selection criteria for 'best' explanation already presuppose that unobserved regularities behave like observed ones (Lipton, 2004).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any criterion favoring unrestricted over restricted laws—simplicity, scope, or unification—smuggles in the uniformity of nature assumption being justified.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Thus IBE cannot non-circularly license the inductive step without independently establishing that nature is uniform beyond the observed region.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Fraassen's constructive empiricism shows that empirical adequacy—fitting only observed data—is a coherent and sufficient explanatory standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If restricted laws satisfy empirical adequacy as well as unrestricted laws, the additional ontological commitment to unobserved regularities requires independent justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Nomological-Explanatory solution therefore presupposes realist commitments about unobserved regularities that are themselves inductive conclusions, not explanatory premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The Nomological-Explanatory solution uses inference to the best explanation (IBE) to infer a law or regularity extending beyond the observed spatio-temporal region
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A law restricted to only the observed spatio-temporal region could serve as an equally good explanation of the observed data
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If an equally good explanation exists that does not support the inductive inference, the selection of the unrestricted law is not justified without further argument
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A law restricted to only the observed spatio-temporal region could serve as an e...Any criterion favoring unrestricted over restricted laws—simplicity, scope, or u...IBE's selection criteria for 'best' explanation already presuppose that unobserv...If an equally good explanation exists that does not support the inductive infere...
    +5 moreShow less
    If restricted laws satisfy empirical adequacy as well as unrestricted laws, the ...The Nomological-Explanatory solution therefore presupposes realist commitments a...The Nomological-Explanatory solution uses inference to the best explanation (IBE...Thus IBE cannot non-circularly license the inductive step without independently ...Van Fraassen's constructive empiricism shows that empirical adequacy—fitting onl...

    Similar

    The problem of induction is a central philosophical issue86%Hume's problem of induction is the problem of grounding the transition...85%Hume discusses the problem of induction in Enquiry §4 pt.2 and necessa...85%Solomonoff's theory of induction is relevant to the philosophical prob...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: induction-problem
    View source passageHide passage
    Another critical objection is that the Nomological-Explanatory solution simply begs the question, even if it is taken to be legitimate to make use of IBE in the justification of induction. In the first step of the argument we infer to a law or regularity which extends beyond the spatio-temporal region in which observations have been thus far made, in order to predict what will happen in the future. But why could a law that only applies to the observed spatio-temporal region not be an equally goo
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit