Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T23:43:27.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inductive Analogy in Carnapian Spirit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Theo A.F. Kuipers
Theo A.F. Kuipers*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A number of evaluations of the general prospects of Carnap's program of inductive logic have been presented on different occasions (e.g., Adler 1980, Jeffrey 1973, Kuipers 1984a, Lakatos 1968, Niiniluoto 1982). Niiniluoto's and my own account are the most positive about the internal strength of the program, provided one includes open systems of inductive probability, i.e., systems with non-zero probabilities for contingent universal generalizations. As is well-known, this was done for the first time by Hintikka.

This paper will not add a new evaluation to the list. Instead, I will show that the internal heuristic of Carnap's restricted program is already strong enough to solve one of its major problems, i.e., the problem of integrating analogy influences in systems of inductive probability.

Carnap has given considerable attention to the problem of analogy; to be precise, to what he called analogy by similarity, or analogy influences based on a distance function between the predicates.

Type
Part VI. Issues in the Logic of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 156 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Footnotes

1

The main part of the research was done as a fellow, in '82/'83, of the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study (NIAS), at Wassenaar.

References

Adler, J. (1980). “Criteria for a Good Inductive Logic.” In Applications of Inductive Logic. Edited by L.J. Cohen and M. Hesse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pages 379-405.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1980). “A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part 2.” In Jeffrey (1980). Pages 7-155.Google Scholar
Costantini, D. (1983). “Analogy by Similarity.” Erkenntnis 20: 103-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1973). “Carnap1s Inductive Logic.” Synthese 25: 299-306. (As reprinted in Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist. Edited by J. Hlntikka. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1975. Pages 325-332.)Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R.. (ed.). (1980). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. Volume II. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, T. (1978). Studies in Inductive Probability and Rational Expectation. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, T. (1980). “A Survey of Inductive Systems.” In Jeffrey (1980). Pages 183-192.Google Scholar
Kuipers, T. (1984a). “What Remains of Carnap's Program Today?” To appear in Probability, Statistics and Inductive Logic, special issue of Epistemologia. Proceedings of an International Conference in 1981 in Luino, Italy. Edited by Costantini, D. and Agazzi, E..Google Scholar
Kuipers, T. (1984b). “Two Types of Inductive Analogy by Similarity.” Erkenntnis 21: 63-87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1968). “Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic.” In The Problem of Inductive Logic. Edited by Lakatos, I. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Pages 315-417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. (1982). “Inductive Logic as a Methodological Research Programme.” Scientia 117(Supplement): 77-100.Google Scholar