Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:56:31.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Discussion: Salmon's Vindication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Ian Hacking*
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge

Abstract

The conclusion urged in Mr Salmon's recent article ([1], pp. 252-261) is so remarkable that it may be worth recording some difficulties. He claims to rescue Reichenbach's notorious vindication of induction. This is essentially concerned with estimating long-run frequencies. By an estimator let us mean any rule for making estimates appropriate to various bodies of information. Reichenbach thought an estimator is sensible only if it is convergent, that is, roughly speaking, only if its estimates tend to approach the truth as more and more data is collected. Mr Salmon observes that an estimator should, in addition, be independent of the language in which the information is expressed. He contends that this criterion of linguistic invariance, when added to the rest of Reichenbach's train of thought, suffices to justify the “straight rule” for estimation: if m of the n observed A's are B, estimate the long-run frequency of B among A's as m/n.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1965

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

[1]On Vindicating Induction,” Philosopy of Science, Vol. 30, 1963, pp. 252261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] The Continuum of Inductive Methods, Chicago, 1952, pp. 81-90.Google Scholar