The Problem of Induction - 4
8 Março 2022, 09:30 • António José Teiga Zilhão
I. Inductivist Attempts at Solving the Problem of Induction.
A. Max Black's Proposal
1. Tarski's stratified solution to the Liar Paradox.2. Black's adoption of a similarly stratified approach as a means to justify inductive reasoning. Examples of level 1 inductive arguments and level 1 inductive rules; level 2 inductive arguments (having as their object level 1 inductive arguments and rules) and level 2 inductive rules; level 3 inductive arguments (having as their object level 2 inductive arguments and rules) and level 3 inductive rules, etc.3. Black's inductive solution to the problem of justifying induction: the inductive rules at any level k are to be justified by inductive arguments and rules of level k+1; the latter are in turn to be justified by inductive arguments and rules of level k+2, and son on; the stratification has no upper level; thus, no circularity will ever occur.
B. Critical Analysis of Max Black's Proposal
1. Skyrms's criticism: Black's proposal does not justify induction, because any rules of reasoning, no matter how absurd, admit being justified in that very same way.2. Skyrms's proof: counter inductive logic. Counter inductive logic is a patently absurd form of reasoning; however, its stratified structure, similar to the one described by Black, enables us to counter inductively justify its counter inductive rules, without ever falling prey to any sort of circularity.3. Skyrms's conclusions: i) If the following of a specific procedure enables us to justify any rule of reasoning, then the following of such a procedure enables us to justify no rule of reasoning; ii) Not falling prey to circularity is a necessary condition for the acceptance of a justificatory procedure; but it is not a sufficient condition for such an acceptance.
1. Tarski's stratified solution to the Liar Paradox.
2. Black's adoption of a similarly stratified approach as a means to justify inductive reasoning. Examples of level 1 inductive arguments and level 1 inductive rules; level 2 inductive arguments (having as their object level 1 inductive arguments and rules) and level 2 inductive rules; level 3 inductive arguments (having as their object level 2 inductive arguments and rules) and level 3 inductive rules, etc.
3. Black's inductive solution to the problem of justifying induction: the inductive rules at any level k are to be justified by inductive arguments and rules of level k+1; the latter are in turn to be justified by inductive arguments and rules of level k+2, and son on; the stratification has no upper level; thus, no circularity will ever occur.
B. Critical Analysis of Max Black's Proposal
1. Skyrms's criticism: Black's proposal does not justify induction, because any rules of reasoning, no matter how absurd, admit being justified in that very same way.
2. Skyrms's proof: counter inductive logic. Counter inductive logic is a patently absurd form of reasoning; however, its stratified structure, similar to the one described by Black, enables us to counter inductively justify its counter inductive rules, without ever falling prey to any sort of circularity.
3. Skyrms's conclusions: i) If the following of a specific procedure enables us to justify any rule of reasoning, then the following of such a procedure enables us to justify no rule of reasoning; ii) Not falling prey to circularity is a necessary condition for the acceptance of a justificatory procedure; but it is not a sufficient condition for such an acceptance.