Immodest inductive methods

Philosophy of Science 38 (1):54-63 (1971)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Inductive methods can be used to estimate the accuracies of inductive methods. Call a method immodest if it estimates that it is at least as accurate as any of its rivals. It would be unreasonable to adopt any but an immodest method. Under certain assumptions, exactly one of Carnap's lambda-methods is immodest. This may seem to solve the problem of choosing among the lambda-methods; but sometimes the immodest lambda-method is λ =0, which it would not be reasonable to adopt. We should therefore reconsider the assumptions that led to this conclusion: for instance, the measure of accuracy

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Lewis on immodest inductive models.Stephen Spielman - 1972 - Philosophy of Science 39 (3):375-377.
Spielman and Lewis on inductive immodesty.David Lewis - 1974 - Philosophy of Science 41 (1):84-85.
Inductive immodesty and lawlikeness.Juhani Pietarinen - 1974 - Philosophy of Science 41 (2):196-198.
Why There Can't Be a Logic of Induction.Stuart S. Glennan - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:78 - 86.
The problem of the problem of induction.Roger White - 2015 - Episteme 12 (2):275-290.
Hypotheses and Inductive Predictions.J. W. Romeyn - 2004 - Synthese 141 (3):333-364.
Hypotheses and inductive predictions.Jan-Willem Romeijn - 2004 - Synthese 141 (3):333 - 364.
Hypotheses and Inductive Predictions.J. -W. Romeyn - 2004 - Synthese 141 (3):333-364.
A reply to "induction and objectivity".Frank Jackson - 1970 - Philosophy of Science 37 (3):440-443.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
205 (#122,572)

6 months
17 (#173,529)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David K. Lewis
PhD: Harvard University; Last affiliation: Princeton University

Citations of this work

Higher‐Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):314-345.
Irrelevant Influences.Katia Vavova - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:134-152.
Uniqueness and Metaepistemology.Daniel Greco & Brian Hedden - 2016 - Journal of Philosophy 113 (8):365-395.
Disagreement.Richard Feldman & Ted A. Warfield (eds.) - 2010 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Epistemic Modesty Defended.David Christensen - 2013 - In David Christensen & Jennifer Lackey (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 77.

View all 71 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The Continuum of Inductive Methods.Rudolf Carnap - 1953 - Philosophy 28 (106):272-273.
Induction and Hypothesis.S. F. Barker - 1960 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11 (42):164-166.

Add more references