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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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