Comments on “Probabilism”
Adding new comments is disabled for now.
Comments are for the page: Probabilism
Popper rejected induction
Popper explicitly didn’t have a solution to the problem of induction. He said it was insoluble, and that science doesn’t use induction.
I’m guessing that you are thinking of his falsificationism? That is explicitly not a solution to the problem of induction; it’s an alternative theory of how science works.
Stronger claim
His claim was even stronger than that.
It was not just that science doesn’t use induction and thus he proposed another theory of how science works. His claim is that induction doesn’t even happen in any domain.
The most elaborate treatment of this view is given in his “Realism and The Aim of Science.”
It is a view that I am wrestling with, and if you combine it with Donald Campbell’s evolutionary epistemology. I think we find a strong case for this.
It is a different case of the impossibility of induction that David Deutsch makes in his books. Which is another interesting solution to induction.
However, I still can’t shake the feeling that some sleight of hand has happened here.
alternative to induction
what do you think of Popper’s solution to the problem of induction?