Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
1160454 | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A | 2013 | 8 Pages |
Abstract
A common criticism of Hume’s famous anti-induction argument is that it is vitiated because it fails to foreclose the possibility of an authentically probabilistic justification of induction. I argue that this claim is false, and that on the contrary, the probability calculus itself, in the form of an elementary consequence that I call Hume’s Theorem, fully endorses Hume’s argument. Various objections, including the often-made claim that Hume is defeated by de Finetti’s exchangeability results, are considered and rejected.
Keywords
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities
Arts and Humanities
History
Authors
Colin Howson,