more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Inductive logicians have a 'requirement of total evidence': induction is strong if 1) it has true premises, 2) it has correct inductive form, and 3) no additional evidence that would change the degree of support is available at the time.
Gist of Idea
Good induction needs 'total evidence' - the absence at the time of any undermining evidence
Source
Wesley Salmon (Four Decades of Scientific Explanation [1989], 2.4.2)
Book Ref
Salmon,Wesley C.: 'Four Decades of Scientific Explanation', ed/tr. Humphreys,Paul [Pittsburgh 2006], p.55
A Reaction
The evidence might be very close at hand, but not quite 'available' to the person doing the induction.
| 3033 | Induction moves from some truths to similar ones, by contraries or consequents [Diog. Laertius] |
| 6350 | Premises can support an argument without entailing it [Pollock/Cruz on Hume] |
| 3598 | Hume just shows induction isn't deduction [Williams,M on Hume] |
| 13055 | Good induction needs 'total evidence' - the absence at the time of any undermining evidence [Salmon] |
| 3860 | Science cannot be shown to be rational if induction is rejected [Newton-Smith on Popper] |
| 6953 | All reasoning is inductive, and deduction only concerns implication [Harman] |
| 3251 | Observed regularities are only predictable if we assume hidden necessity [Nagel] |
| 16800 | An inductive inference is underdetermined, by definition [Lipton] |
| 16858 | We can argue to support our beliefs, so induction will support induction, for believers in induction [Lipton] |
| 4811 | Induction (unlike deduction) is non-monotonic - it can be invalidated by new premises [Psillos] |
| 4583 | How can an argument be good induction, but poor deduction? [Baggini /Fosl] |
| 14914 | Inductive defences of induction may be rule-circular, but not viciously premise-circular [Ladyman/Ross] |