Skip to main content

No Answer to Hume

Buy Article:

$53.17 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

In a recent article in this journal, Daniel Steel charges me with committing a fallacy in my discussion of inductive rules. I show that the charge is false, and that Steel's own attempt to validate enumerative induction in terms of formal learning theory is itself fallacious. I go on to argue that, contra Steel, formal learning theory is in principle incapable of answering Hume's famous claim that any attempt to justify induction will beg the question.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.605249

Publication date: September 1, 2011

More about this publication?
routledg/cisp/2011/00000025/00000003/art00006
dcterms_title,dcterms_description,pub_keyword
6
5
20
40
5

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more