more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

---

Single Idea 3699

[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / f. Foundationalism critique ]

Full Idea

The attempt to prove physical statements on the basis of sensory evidence is defeated by the problem of induction.

Gist of Idea

The induction problem blocks any attempted proof of physical statements

Source

Laurence Bonjour (In Defence of Pure Reason [1998], §3.6)

Book Ref

Bonjour,Laurence: 'In Defense of Pure Reason' [CUP 1998], p.84

---

A Reaction

This sounds like a logician's use of the word 'prove', which would be a pretty forlorn hope. Insofar as experience proves anything, fully sensing a chair proves its existence.

---

The 15 ideas from 'In Defence of Pure Reason'

3695	Philosophy is a priori if it is anything [Bonjour]

3696	A priori justification requires understanding but no experience [Bonjour]

3697	The concept of possibility is prior to that of necessity [Bonjour]

3698	Indeterminacy of translation is actually indeterminacy of meaning and belief [Bonjour]

3699	The induction problem blocks any attempted proof of physical statements [Bonjour]

3701	Externalist theories of justification don't require believers to have reasons for their beliefs [Bonjour]

3702	Externalism means we have no reason to believe, which is strong scepticism [Bonjour]

3700	Coherence can't be validated by appeal to coherence [Bonjour]

3704	Moderate rationalists believe in fallible a priori justification [Bonjour]

3703	You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up [Bonjour]

3651	Perceiving necessary connections is the essence of reasoning [Bonjour]

3706	A priori justification can vary in degree [Bonjour]

3707	Our rules of thought can only be judged by pure rational insight [Bonjour]

3708	All thought represents either properties or indexicals [Bonjour]

3709	Induction must go beyond the evidence, in order to explain why the evidence occurred [Bonjour]