Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:18:19.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Constructivist Solution to the Problem of Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2011

Byeong D. Lee
Byeong D. Lee*
Affiliation:
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Ever since Hume raised the problem of induction, many philosophers have tried to solve this problem; however, there still is no solution that has won wide acceptance among philosophers. According to Wilfrid Sellars, the reason is mainly that these philosophers have tried to justify induction by theoretical reasoning rather than by practical reasoning. In this paper I offer a sort of Sellarsian proposal. On the basis of the instrumental principle and the constructivist view of the concept of epistemic justification, I argue that it is reasonable to accept induction.

RÉSUMÉ: Depuis que Hume a soulevé le problème de l’induction, nombreux ont été les philosophes qui se sont attaqués à cette question. Aucun, pourtant, n’y a jusqu’à présent apporté de réponse satisfaisante et susceptible d’entraîner l’adhésion générale. Selon Wilfrid Sellars, la raison de cet échec est que les tentatives de justification se fondaient sur des raisonnements théoriques plutôt que pratiques. L’auteur offre ici une sorte de solution «sellarsienne» au problème. À partir du principe instrumental et de la conception constructiviste de la justification épistémique, l’auteur tente de démontrer qu’il est raisonnable d’accepter l’induction.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 95 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bird, Graham 1999 “Kant and the Problem of Induction: A Reply to Walker.” In Transcendental Arguments, ed. Stern, Robert, 31–45. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1952 “The Philosophy of Francis Bacon.” In his Ethics and the History of Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
DeVries, Willem A. 2005 Wilfrid Sellars. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas 1651 Leviathan. Reprint, Pelican Classics, ed. Macpherson, C. B., London: Penguin Books, 1968.Google Scholar
Hume, David 1748 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Reprint, ed. Buckle, Stephen, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 2008 The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Byeong D. 2008 “A Pragmatic Phenomenalist Account of Knowledge.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 47: 565–82.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 2000 Theory of Knowledge. 2nded.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Pitt, Joseph 1981 Pictures, Images and Conceptual Change: An Analysis of Wilfrid Sellars’ Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans 1938 “The Pragmatic Justification of Induction.” In his Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reprint, in The Theory of Knowledge: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Louis P. Pojman, 450–4, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas 1988 Rationality: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature and the Rationale of Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1959 “Science and Ethics.” In his Philosophical Perspectives: Metaphysics and Epistemology, 209-32. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1967 “Objectivity, Intersubjectivity and The Moral Point of View.” In his Science and Metaphysics:: Variations on Kantian Themes, 175-229. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1974a “Induction as Vindication.” In his Essays in Philosophy and its History, 367-416. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1974b “Are There Non-Deductive Logics?” Ibid., 417-38.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1979 “More on Givenness and Explanatory Coherence.” In Justification and Knowledge: New Studies in Epistemology, ed. Pappas, George S.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Stroud, Barry 1968 “Transcendental Arguments.” Journal of Philosophy 65: 241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, Barry 1999 “The Goal of Transcendental Arguments.” In Transcendental Arguments, ed. Stern, Robert, 155–72. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1989 Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Ralph C. S. 1999 “Induction and Transcendental Argument.” In Transcendental Arguments, ed. Stern, Robert, 13–29. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar