Advertisement

Why Both Popper and Watkins Fail to Solve the Problem of Induction

  • John Worrall
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 117)

Abstract

Accepted science not only does, but should, inform our technological practice. If someone wants to build a bridge that will stand up tomorrow or a plane that will fly tomorrow she should assume in particular that currently accepted low-level generalisations will continue to hold tomorrow. Someone who claimed (without evidence) that falling bodies will soon start to fall with an acceleration which increases as the cube of the time of fall would be regarded as downright irrational. Someone who encouraged passengers to fly on an aeroplane built on that supposition about future falling bodies would be regarded as criminally irresponsible. But we know, following Hume, that, since all the observational evidence we have for the generalisations accepted by science is of necessity evidence about the past, and since deductive logic is not content-increasing, we certainly cannot deductively infer that accepted generalisations will continue to hold in the future from any amount of evidence we may have. But what then is the basis for these very firm judgments about rationality and responsibility? This is, of course, the notorious ‘pragmatic problem of induction’. John Watkins has recently joined the long list of philosophers who have attempted to solve the problem.

Keywords

Inductive Assumption Future Prediction Deductive Logic Empirical Generalisation Inductive Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartley, W.W.: 1981, ‘Eine Losung des Goodman-Paradoxons’ in Radnitzky and Andersson (eds.): Voraussetzungen und Grenzen der Wissenschaft. Tubingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, L.: 1895, ‘What Achilles said to the Tortoise’, Mind, 14, 278–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feyerabend, P.: 1975, Against Method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  4. Miller, D.: 1974: ‘Popper’s Qualitative Theory of Verisimilitude’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25, 166–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Miller, D.: 1975, ‘The Accuracy of Predictions’, Synthese, 30, 159–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller, D.: 1982, ‘Conjectural Knowledge: Popper’s Solution of the Problem of Induction’ in Levinson (ed.): In Pursuit of Truth. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
  7. Popper, K.R.: 1945, The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Popper, K.R.: 1963, Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Popper, K.R.: 1972, Objective Knowledge. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Russell, B.A.W.: 1946, A History of Western Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Russell, B.A.W.: 1948, Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Salmon, W.C.: 1981, ‘Rational Prediction’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32, 115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Watkins, J.W.N.: 1984, Science and Scepticism. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Watkins, J.W.N.: 1988, ‘The Pragmatic Problem of Induction’, Analysis, 48, 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Worrall, J.: 1978, ‘Is the Empirical Content of a Theory Dependent on its Rivals’ in Niiniluoto and Tuomela (Eds.): The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change.North Holland.Google Scholar
  16. Worrall, J.: 1981, ‘Feyerabend und die Fakten’ in H.-P. Duerr (Ed.): Versuchungen — Aufsatze zur Philosophie Paul Feyerabends. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Worrall, J: 1982, ‘The Pressure of Light: the Strange Case of the Vacillating “Crucial Experiment’”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 13, 133–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Worrall, J.: 1985, ‘Scientific Discovery and Theory Confirmation’ in Pitt (Ed.): Change and Progress in Modern Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. Worrall, J.: 1989, ‘Structural Realism: the Best of Both Worlds?’, Dialectica, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Worrall
    • 1
  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceUK

Personalised recommendations