Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:48:49.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Facts of the Matter: A Discussion of Norton's Material Theory of Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Daniel Steel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent essay, John Norton proposes a material theory of induction, according to which all justification for inductive inference ultimately stems from the particular facts of the case at hand. Despite being sympathetic to the pluralistic spirit of this proposal, I argue that central controversies among leading theories of inductive inference turn not on material facts but upon normative judgments regarding the proper standards and aims of induction. Thus, a pluralistic approach to induction can be successfully developed only given an explanation of how the choice of such aims and standards depends on features of particular cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 188 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank John Norton for helpful discussion and comments regarding this essay.

References

Hellman, Geoffrey (1997), “Bayes and Beyond”, Bayes and Beyond 64:191–221.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin (1997), “A Logic of Induction”, A Logic of Induction 64:268–290.Google Scholar
Howson, Colin, and Urbach, Peter (1993), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, 2nd ed. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Kadane, Joseph, Schervish, Mark, and Seidenfeld, Teddy (1996a), “When Several Bayesians Agree That There Will Be No Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion”, When Several Bayesians Agree That There Will Be No Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion 63 (Proceedings): S281–S289.Google Scholar
Kadane, Joseph, Schervish, Mark, and Seidenfeld, Teddy (1996b), “Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion”, Reasoning to a Foregone Conclusion 91:1228–1235.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kevin (1996), The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kevin, Schulte, Oliver, and Juhl, Cory (1997), “Learning Theory and the Philosophy of Science”, Learning Theory and the Philosophy of Science 64:245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyburg, Henry E. (1974), The Logical Foundations of Statistical Inference. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1993), Betting on Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1997), “Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments”, Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments 64:291–305.Google Scholar
Mayo, Deborah (1996), Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, Deborah, and Kruse, Michael (2001), “Principles of Inference and Their Consequences”, in Corfield, David and Williamson, Jon (eds.), Foundations of Bayesianism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, John D. (2003), “A Material Theory of Induction”, A Material Theory of Induction 70:647–670.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Glymour, Clark, and Scheines, Richard (2000), Causation, Prediction, and Search, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steel, Daniel (2003), “A Bayesian Way to Make Stopping Rules Matter”, A Bayesian Way to Make Stopping Rules Matter 58:213–227.Google Scholar
Williamson, Jon (1999), “Countable Additivity and Subjective Probability”, Countable Additivity and Subjective Probability 50:401–416.Google Scholar