Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Armstrong, D.M.
 
Books on Amazon
Induction III 50
Induction/Mackie: pro inductive (probability) CoCo ArmstrongVsMackie - but: Armstrong pro induction: rational
III 52
Induction/Armstrong: from the observed to the unobserved: invalid, nevertheless necessary (!) rational - from conclusion to best explanation, if not BE, what should be better (analytic truth, that BE = BE?) - the unobserved will behave like the observed (alternatives are more poorly justified)
III 58
Induction/Logical Possibility: that all emeralds are grue has the same logical possibility (percentage) as that they are green - the observed emeralds are green - but they are also grue - the mathematics is the same
II 104
Induction/ArmstrongVsMartin/VsPlace: as nominalists, they cannot assume a higher order atomic state that connects the U

AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong

In
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996

AR III
D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983


> Counter arguments against Armstrong
> Counter arguments in relation to Induction



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-23