Can Enumerative Induction Be Defended by Modal Scepticism and Modal Empiricism
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 9688966 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Shuyi Feng (0000-0001-6822-9336, Wuhan University, autor correspondente) |
| Ano | 2020 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Fascículo | 2 |
| Páginas | 345-361 |
| Data de publicação | 2020-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0012-2173 • E-ISSN: 1759-0949 |
| Editora | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0012217319000350 |
| OpenAlex | W2989398571 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referências citadas | 18 |
In the spirit of modal scepticism, Peter Hawke offers a modal epistemology, the safe explanation theory (SET), which takes the form of modal empiricism. By employing SET, he tries to defend enumerative induction (EI): it is reasonable to believe that any X is F on the basis of a sufficiently large sample in which any X is F. In this paper, I argue that Hawke’s defence fails. Moreover, I point out a problem with SET, which results in this failure: SET is too strict to account for some possibility claims that we are entitled to believe
Empiricism · Epistemology · Mathematical economics · Modal · Set (abstract data type) · Skepticism · Chemistry · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Empirically-Informed Modal Rationalism
Can Modal Skepticism Defeat Humean Skepticism?
Similarity and Possibility
Real Natures and Familiar Objects
Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?
Causal and Metaphysical Necessity
The Epistemology of Modality
Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance
Introduction
Concepts, Experience and Modal Knowledge1
Modal scepticism, Yablo-style conceivability, and analogical reasoning
Abduction and Modality
Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility
Imagining as a Guide to Possibility
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | Não |