Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T02:34:04.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: On a Recent Objection to Popper and Miller's “Disproof” of Probabilistic Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Colin Howson
Colin Howson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, The London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dunn and Hellman's objection to Popper and Miller's alleged disproof of inductive probability is considered and rejected. Dunn and Hellman base their objection on a decomposition of the incremental support P(h/e)-P(h) of h by e dual to that of Popper and Miller, and argue, dually to Popper and Miller, to a conclusion contrary to the latters' that all support is deductive in character. I contend that Dunn and Hellman's dualizing argument fails because the elements of their decomposition are not supports of parts of h. I conclude by reinforcing a different line of criticism of Popper and Miller due to Redhead.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 675 - 680
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dunn, J. M., and Hellman, G. (1986), “Dualling: A Critique of an Argument of Popper and Miller”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1968), “The Varieties of Information and Scientific Explanation”, in J. van Rootselaar and F. Staal (eds.), The Proceedings of the Third International Conference for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Howson, C., and Franklin, A. (1986), “A Bayesian Analysis of Content, and the Localisation of Support”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 207–212.Google Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1952), Introduction to Metamathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Popper, Sir K. R., and Miller, D. W. (1983), “A Proof of the Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, Nature, 302: 687f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Sir K. R., and Miller, D. W. (1987), “Why Probabilistic Support is not Inductive”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London A 321: 569–591.Google Scholar
Redhead, M. L. G. (1984), “On the Impossibility of Inductive Probability”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 185–191.Google Scholar