Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T15:30:46.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Response to Jackson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

F. John Clendinnen
F. John Clendinnen*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Frank Jackson's criticisms have helped me recognize some of the weaknesses in my proposed vindication of induction. The core of the argument I offered was that induction is the only method of predicting which is based in a nonarbitrary way on the facts. I still believe that this is so and that because of this property induction is the only reasonable way of predicting. However I now recognize defects in the argument by which I attempted to establish that the uniqueness of this property to induction constitutes its justification.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 444 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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

REFERENCES

[1] Clendinnen, F. J., “Induction and Objectivity,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 33, No. 3, 1966, pp. 215–229.10.1086/288095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Jackson, F., “A Reply to ‘Induction and Objectivity‘”, Philosophy of Science, this issue.Google Scholar