归纳法实践中的事实与法律

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
D. Goldstick
{"title":"归纳法实践中的事实与法律","authors":"D. Goldstick","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT ‘Simplicity’ comes up in different senses in scientific methodology. The simplicity criterion at issue here is relied on in all inductive inference, it’s argued. Therefore, it cannot be inductively learned—except by learners who already rely on it. The question whether one is warranted in relying on it is indeed in order, but we all are found on the affirmative side of the question in practice. On the one hand, there is arguably an epistemological lesson in this. On the other hand, there is the question what reality must be like objectively for reliance on simplicity to be so apt to pay off when it comes to forecasting the future.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"105 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"De Facto and De Jure in the Practice of Induction\",\"authors\":\"D. Goldstick\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT ‘Simplicity’ comes up in different senses in scientific methodology. The simplicity criterion at issue here is relied on in all inductive inference, it’s argued. Therefore, it cannot be inductively learned—except by learners who already rely on it. The question whether one is warranted in relying on it is indeed in order, but we all are found on the affirmative side of the question in practice. On the one hand, there is arguably an epistemological lesson in this. On the other hand, there is the question what reality must be like objectively for reliance on simplicity to be so apt to pay off when it comes to forecasting the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"105 - 116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1866478","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要“简单性”在科学方法论中有不同的含义。有人认为,这里争论的简单性标准在所有的归纳推理中都是依赖的。因此,它不能被归纳学习——除非是已经依赖它的学习者。一个人是否有理由依赖它的问题确实是合理的,但在实践中,我们都站在这个问题的正确一边。一方面,可以说这里面有一个认识论的教训。另一方面,有一个问题是,在预测未来时,依赖简单性才能获得回报,客观上现实必须是什么样的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
De Facto and De Jure in the Practice of Induction
ABSTRACT ‘Simplicity’ comes up in different senses in scientific methodology. The simplicity criterion at issue here is relied on in all inductive inference, it’s argued. Therefore, it cannot be inductively learned—except by learners who already rely on it. The question whether one is warranted in relying on it is indeed in order, but we all are found on the affirmative side of the question in practice. On the one hand, there is arguably an epistemological lesson in this. On the other hand, there is the question what reality must be like objectively for reliance on simplicity to be so apt to pay off when it comes to forecasting the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science is a scholarly journal dedicated to publishing original research in philosophy of science and in philosophically informed history and sociology of science. Its scope includes the foundations and methodology of the natural, social, and human sciences, philosophical implications of particular scientific theories, and broader philosophical reflection on science. The editors invite contributions not only from philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, but also from researchers in the sciences. The journal publishes articles from a wide variety of countries and philosophical traditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信