Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:44:06.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Inductions Meet the Material Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Elay Shech
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical inductions, that is, the pessimistic metainduction and the problem of unconceived alternatives, are critically analyzed via John D. Norton’s material theory of induction and subsequently rejected as noncogent arguments. It is suggested that the material theory is amenable to a local version of the pessimistic metainduction, for example, in the context of some medical studies.

Type
Realism
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 86 , Issue 5 , December 2019 , pp. 918 - 929
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 am indebted to John Norton and Moti Mizrahi for extremely valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. Thanks also to helpful conversations with audience mbers at the Auburn University Philosophical Society (spring 2018), the 2018 “Norton for Everyone?” conference in Pittsburgh, and the PSA 2018 conference in Seattle. I am also grateful to participants in Gila Sher’s Truth and Scientific Change reading group at the Edelstein Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (fall 2017).

References

Chakravartty, A. 2008. “What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You: Realism and the Unconceived.” Philosophical Studies 137:149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition. 3 vols. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Fahrbach, L. 2011. “How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change.” Synthese 180:139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992. “‘Style’ for Historians and Philosophers.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (1): 1–20..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2005a. “Contradicted and Clinically Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research.” Journal of the American Medical Association 294:218–28.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A.. 2005b. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2:696–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwa, C. 2011. Styles of Knowing: A New History of Science from Ancient Times to the Present. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. 2002. “Baseball, Pessimistic Inductions, and the Turnover Fallacy.” Analysis 62:281–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48:19–49.10.1086/288975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P. J. 2001. “Why the Pessimistic Induction Is a Fallacy.” Synthese 129:371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2002. “Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Meta-modus Tollens.” In Recent Themes in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Clarke, S. and Lyons, T. D., 63–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D., and Callender, C.. 2004. “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy.” Philosophy of Science 71:320–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1872/1916. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. 8th ed. London: Longman, Green.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. 2013. “The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone Too Far.” Synthese 190:3209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizrahi, M.. 2015. “Historical Inductions: New Cherries, Same Old Cherry-Picking.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29:129–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizrahi, M.. 2016. “The History of Science as a Graveyard of Theories: A Philosophers’ Myth?” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 30:263–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. 2003. “A Material Theory of Induction.” Philosophy of Science 70:647–70.10.1086/378858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D.. 2018. “The Material Theory of Induction.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/material.html.Google Scholar
Park, S. 2011. “A Confutation of the Pessimistic Induction.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42:75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H. 1902/1952. Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover. Originally published as La science et l’hypothèse (Paris: Flammarion).Google Scholar
Psillos, S. 1996. “Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Induction.” Philosophy of Science 63 (Proceedings): S306–S314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, S.. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. “What Is Mathematical Truth?” In Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, 60–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H.. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ruhmkorff, S. 2013. “Global and Local Pessimistic Meta-inductions.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27:409–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, J. 2005. “On the Pessimistic Induction and Two Fallacies.” Philosophy of Science 72:1088–98.10.1086/508959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2001. “Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?” Philosophy of Science 68 (Proceedings): S1–S12.10.1086/392893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. K.. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2013. “Success and Truth in the Realism/Anti-realism Debate.” Synthese 190:1719–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2015. “Pessimistic Inductions: Four Varieties.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29:61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar