Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.6/7025 |
Resumo: | This discussion paper is a reply to Stathis Psillos’ paper “Induction and Natural Necessities” (2017), published in this journal. In that paper, he attempts to refute David Armstrong’s solution to the problem of induction. To accomplish this desideratum, he proposes that the best explanation for our observed regularities is a sort of “best before date” necessity. That is, necessary connections may break down and are not by default timeless. He develops arguments against my (author 1) defence of the necessitarian solution regarding a previous paper by Helen Beebee (2011). He alleges that a) best before date necessity is no worse than timeless necessity; b) his proposal does not imply any further inductive generalisation to timeless necessity; and c) inductive inferences are justified. In this discussion paper, I provide arguments against these three claims. |
id |
RCAP_a2b60bf11875ce3d2f0ef74ed4b4cb66 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ubibliorum.ubi.pt:10400.6/7025 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to PsillosInductionLaws of natureTimeless necessityTime-limited necessityInference to the bestLaws of natureExplanationThis discussion paper is a reply to Stathis Psillos’ paper “Induction and Natural Necessities” (2017), published in this journal. In that paper, he attempts to refute David Armstrong’s solution to the problem of induction. To accomplish this desideratum, he proposes that the best explanation for our observed regularities is a sort of “best before date” necessity. That is, necessary connections may break down and are not by default timeless. He develops arguments against my (author 1) defence of the necessitarian solution regarding a previous paper by Helen Beebee (2011). He alleges that a) best before date necessity is no worse than timeless necessity; b) his proposal does not imply any further inductive generalisation to timeless necessity; and c) inductive inferences are justified. In this discussion paper, I provide arguments against these three claims.uBibliorumCastro, Eduardo2019-04-29T10:02:54Z2019-032019-03-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.6/7025eng10.1007/s10838-018-9425-0metadata only accessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-12-15T09:46:06Zoai:ubibliorum.ubi.pt:10400.6/7025Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:47:39.082701Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
title |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
spellingShingle |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos Castro, Eduardo Induction Laws of nature Timeless necessity Time-limited necessity Inference to the best Laws of nature Explanation |
title_short |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
title_full |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
title_fullStr |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
title_full_unstemmed |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
title_sort |
Best Before Date Necessity: A Reply to Psillos |
author |
Castro, Eduardo |
author_facet |
Castro, Eduardo |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
uBibliorum |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Castro, Eduardo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Induction Laws of nature Timeless necessity Time-limited necessity Inference to the best Laws of nature Explanation |
topic |
Induction Laws of nature Timeless necessity Time-limited necessity Inference to the best Laws of nature Explanation |
description |
This discussion paper is a reply to Stathis Psillos’ paper “Induction and Natural Necessities” (2017), published in this journal. In that paper, he attempts to refute David Armstrong’s solution to the problem of induction. To accomplish this desideratum, he proposes that the best explanation for our observed regularities is a sort of “best before date” necessity. That is, necessary connections may break down and are not by default timeless. He develops arguments against my (author 1) defence of the necessitarian solution regarding a previous paper by Helen Beebee (2011). He alleges that a) best before date necessity is no worse than timeless necessity; b) his proposal does not imply any further inductive generalisation to timeless necessity; and c) inductive inferences are justified. In this discussion paper, I provide arguments against these three claims. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-04-29T10:02:54Z 2019-03 2019-03-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.6/7025 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10400.6/7025 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1007/s10838-018-9425-0 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
metadata only access info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
metadata only access |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799136371970932736 |