more from this thinker     |     more from this text

Single Idea 16800

[filed under theme 14. Science / C. Induction / 4. Reason in Induction ]

Full Idea

If an inference is inductive, then by definition it is underdetermined by the evidence and the rules of deduction.

Gist of Idea

An inductive inference is underdetermined, by definition

Source

Peter Lipton (Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) [2004], 01 'Underd')

Book Ref

Lipton,Peter: 'Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd ed)' [Routledge 2004], p.7

The 12 ideas with the same theme [role of pure reason in inductive inference]:

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]