Inference to the best explanation and Norton's material theory of induction

I argue that we should consider Norton's material theory of induction as consisting of two largely independent claims. First, there is the claim that material facts license inductions - a claim which I interpret as a type of contextualism about induction. Second, there is the claim that there are no universal rules of induction. While a good case can be made for the first claim, I believe that Norton's arguments for the second claim are lacking. In particular, I spell out Norton's argument against the claim that all induction may be reduced to inference to the best explanation, and argue that it is not persuasive. Rejecting this part of Norton's theory does not however require us to abandon the first claim that material facts license inductions. In this way, I distinguish the parts of the material theory of induction we should happily accept from the parts about which we should be more skeptical.     

What are the drivers of induction? Towards a Material Theory+

John Norton's Material Theory of Induction (Norton, 2003, 2005, 2008, forthcoming) has a two-fold, negative and positive, goal. The negative goal is to establish that formal logics of induction fail if they are understood as universally applicable schemas of induction. The positive goal is to establish that it is material facts that enable and justify inductive inferences. I argue in this paper that Norton is more successful with his negative than with his positive ambition. While I do not deny that facts constitute an important type of enabler and justifier of inductions, they are by no means the only type. This paper suggests that there are no less than six other types of background information scientists need and use to fuel and warrant inductions. The discussion of additional enablers and justifiers of inductions will further show there are practically important and intellectually challenging methodological issues Norton's theory prevents us from seeing because it leaves out this or that type of enabler and justifier.     

Quantum sidelights on The Material Theory of Induction

John Norton's The Material Theory of Induction bristles with fresh insights and provocative ideas that provide a much needed stimulus to a stodgy if not moribund field. I use quantum mechanics (QM) as a medium for exploring some of these ideas. First, I note that QM offers more predictability than Newtonian mechanics for the Norton dome and other cases where classical determinism falters. But this ability of QM to partially cure the ills of classical determinism depends on facts about the quantum Hamiltonian operator that vary from case to case, providing an illustration of Norton's theme of the importance of contingent facts for inductive reasoning. Second, I agree with Norton that Bayesianism as developed for classical probability theory does not constitute a universal inference machine, and I use QM to explain the sense in which this is so. But at the same time I defend a brand of quantum Bayesianism as providing an illuminating account of how physicists' reasoning about quantum events. Third, I argue that if the probabilities induced by quantum states are regarded as objective chances then there are strong reasons to think that fair infinite lotteries are impossible in a quantum world.     

The material theory of induction and the epistemology of thought experiments

John D. Norton is responsible for a number of influential views in contemporary philosophy of science. This paper will discuss two of them. The material theory of induction claims that inductive arguments are ultimately justified by their material features, not their formal features. Thus, while a deductive argument can be valid irrespective of the content of the propositions that make up the argument, an inductive argument about, say, apples, will be justified (or not) depending on facts about apples. The argument view of thought experiments claims that thought experiments are arguments, and that they function epistemically however arguments do. These two views have generated a great deal of discussion, although there hasn't been much written about their combination. I argue that despite some interesting harmonies, there is a serious tension between them. I consider several options for easing this tension, before suggesting a set of changes to the argument view that I take to be consistent with Norton's fundamental philosophical commitments, and which retain what seems intuitively correct about the argument view. These changes require that we move away from a unitary epistemology of thought experiments and towards a more pluralist position.     

How to think about analogical inferences: A reply to Norton

In this paper, I raise some worries with John D. Norton's application of his material theory of induction to the study of analogical inferences. Skeptical that these worries can be properly addressed, I propose a principle to guide the philosophical research on analogical inferences and argue for its usefulness.     

Inductive reasoning in the context of discovery: Analogy as an experimental stratagem in the history and philosophy of science

Building on Norton's “material theory of induction,” this paper shows through careful historical analysis that analogy can act as a methodological principle or stratagem, providing experimentalists with a useful framework to assess data and devise novel experiments. Although this particular case study focuses on late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century experiments on the properties and composition of acids, the results of this investigation may be extended and applied to other research programs. A stage in-between what Steinle calls “exploratory experimentation” and robust theory, I argue that analogy encouraged research to substantiate why the likenesses should outweigh the differences (or vice versa) when evaluating results and designing experiments.     

Norton's material theory of analogy

In his book, The Material Theory of Induction, Norton argues that the quest for a universal formal theory or ‘schema’ for analogical inference should be abandoned. In its place, he offers the “material theory of analogy”: each analogical inference is “powered” by a local fact of analogy rather than by any formal schema. His minimalist model promises a straightforward, fact-based approach to the evaluation and justification of analogical inferences. This paper argues that although the rejection of universal schemas is justified, Norton's positive theory is limited in scope: it works well only for a restricted class of analogical inferences. Both facts and quasi-formal criteria have roles to play in a theory of analogical reasoning.     

What induction is (and what it should not be): A concepts-centric perspective on Norton’s radium chloride example

I argue that Norton’s reconstruction of an example inductive inference in Ch.1 of The Material Theory of Induction mischaracterizes scientific induction by treating the ampliation as separable (and separated) from that inherent in conceptualization per se—effectively severing the putative ampliation from its putative warrant. I sketch an alternative analysis in which ampliation and warrant remain closely coupled through a common root in the primary conceptualizations.     

Debunking material induction

In this paper, we present an explanatory objection to Norton's material theory of induction, as applied to predictive inferences. According to the objection we present, there is an explanatory disconnect between our beliefs about the future and the relevant future facts. We argue that if we recognize such a disconnect, we are no longer rationally entitled to our future beliefs.     

Reviving material theories of induction

John Norton says that philosophers have been led astray for thousands of years by their attempt to treat induction formally. He is correct that such an attempt has caused no end of trouble, but he is wrong about the history. There is a rich tradition of non-formal induction. In fact, material theories of induction prevailed all through antiquity and from the Renaissance to the mid-1800s. Recovering these past systems would not only fill lacunae in Norton’s own theory but would highlight areas where Norton has not freed himself from the straightjacket of formal induction as much as he might think. This essay begins that recovery.     

Was Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent?

This paper follows up a debate as to the consistency of Newtonian cosmology. Whereas Malament [(1995). Is Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent? Philosophy of Science 62, 489–510] has shown that Newtonian cosmology is not inconsistent, to date there has been no analysis of Norton's claim [(1995). The force of Newtonian cosmology: Acceleration is relative. Philosophy of Science 62, 511–522.] that Newtonian cosmology was inconsistent prior to certain advances in the 1930s, and in particular prior to Seeliger's seminal paper of Seeliger [(1895). Über das Newton'sche Gravitationsgesetz. Astronomische Nachrichten 137 (3273), 129–136.] In this paper I agree that there are assumptions, Newtonian and cosmological in character, and relevant to the real history of science, which are inconsistent. But there are some important corrections to make to Norton's account. Here I display for the first time the inconsistencies—four in total—in all their detail. Although this extra detail shows there to be several different inconsistencies, it also goes some way towards explaining why they went unnoticed for 200 years.     

A philosophical study of the transition from the caloric theory of heat to thermodynamics: Resisting the pessimistic meta-induction

I began this study with Laudan's argument from the pessimistic induction and I promised to show that the caloric theory of heat cannot be used to support the premisses of the meta-induction on past scientific theories. I tried to show that the laws of experimental calorimetry, adiabatic change and Carnot's theory of the motive power of heat were (i) independent of the assumption that heat is a material substance, (ii) approximately true, (iii) deducible and accounted for within thermodynamics.I stressed that results (i) and (ii) were known to most theorists of the caloric theory and that result (iii) was put forward by the founders of the new thermodynamics. In other words, the truth-content of the caloric theory was located, selected carefully, and preserved by the founders of thermodynamics.However, the reader might think that even if I have succeeded in showing that laudan is wrong about the caloric theory, I have not shown how the strategy followed in this paper can be generalised against the pessimistic meta-induction. I think that the general strategy against Laudan's argument suggested in this paper is this: the empirical success of a mature scientific theory suggests that there are respects and degrees in which this theory is true. The difficulty for — and and real challenge to — philosophers of science is to suggest ways in which this truth-content can be located and shown to be preserved — if at all — to subsequent theories. In particular, the empirical success of a theory does not, automatically, suggest that all theoretical terms of the theory refer. On the contrary, judgments of referential success depend on which theoretical claims are well-supported by the evidence. This is a matter of specific investigation. Generally, one would expect that claims about theoretical entities which are not strongly supported by the evidence or turn out to be independent of the evidence at hand, are not compelling. For simply, if the evidence does not make it likely that our beliefs about putative theoretical entities are approximately correct, a belief in those entities would be ill-founded and unjustified. Theoretical extrapolations in science are indespensable , but they are not arbitrary. If the evidence does not warrant them I do not see why someone should commit herself to them. In a sense, the problem with empricist philisophers is not that they demand that theoretical beliefs must be warranted by evidence. Rather, it is that they claim that no evidence can warrant theorretical beliefs. A realist philosopher of science would not disagree on the first, but she has good grounds to deny the second.I argued that claims about theoretical entities which are not strongly supported by the evidence must not be taken as belief-worthy. But can one sustaon the more ambitious view that loosely supported parts of a theory tend to be just those that include non-referring terms? There is an obvious excess risk in such a generalisation. For there are well-known cases in which a theoretical claim was initially weakly supported by the evidence     

The causal structure of natural kinds

One primary goal for metaphysical theories of natural kinds is to account for their epistemic fruitfulness. According to cluster theories of natural kinds, this epistemic fruitfulness is grounded in the regular and stable co-occurrence of a broad set of properties. In this paper, I defend the view that such a cluster theory is insufficient to adequately account for the epistemic fruitfulness of kinds. I argue that cluster theories can indeed account for the projectibility of natural kinds, but not for several other epistemic operations that natural kinds support. Natural kinds also play a role in scientific explanations and categorizations. A theory of natural kinds can only account for these additional kind-based epistemic practices if it also analyzes their causal structure.     

The epistemic value of good sense

This paper examines competing interpretations of Pierre Duhem’s theory of good sense recently defended by David Stump and Milena Ivanova and defends a hybrid reading that accommodates the intuitions of both readings. At issue between Stump and Ivanova is whether Duhemian good sense is a virtue theoretic concept. I approach the issue from the broader perspective of determining the epistemic value of good sense per se, and argue for a mitigated virtue theoretic reading that identifies an essential role for good sense in theory choice. I also show that many important issues in both philosophy of science and ‘mainstream’ value driven epistemology are illuminated by the debate over the epistemic value of good sense. In particular, philosophical work on the nature of cognitive character, rule governed rationality and the prospects of epistemic value t-monism are illuminated by virtue theoretic readings of Duhemian good sense.     

Kuhn, the correspondence theory of truth and coherentist epistemology

Kuhn argued against both the correspondence theory of truth and convergent realism. Although he likely misunderstood the nature of the correspondence theory, which it seems he wrongly believed to be an epistemic theory, Kuhn had an important epistemic point to make. He maintained that any assessment of correspondence between beliefs and reality is not possible, and therefore, the acceptance of beliefs and the presumption of their truthfulness has to be decided on the basis of other criteria. I will show that via Kuhn’s suggested epistemic values, specifically via problem-solving, his philosophy can be incorporated into a coherentist epistemology. Further, coherentism is, in principle, compatible with convergent realism. However, an argument for increasing likeness to truth requires appropriate historical continuity. Kuhn maintained that the history of science is full of discontinuity, and therefore, the historical condition of convergent realism is not satisfied.     

The rise of western rationalism: Paul Feyerabend's story

I summarize certain aspects of Paul Feyerabend's account of the development of Western rationalism, show the ways in which that account is supposed to run up against an alternative, that of Karl Popper, and then try to give a preliminary comparison of the two. My interest is primarily in whether what Feyerabend called his ‘story’ constitutes a possible history of our epistemic concepts and their trajectory. I express some grave reservations about that story, and about Feyerabend's framework, finding Popper's views less problematic here. However, I also suggest that one important aspect of Feyerabend's material, his treatment of religious belief, can be given an interpretation which makes it tenable, and perhaps preferable to a Popperian approach.     

Scepticism,relativism and the argument from the criterion

This article explores the relationship between epistemic relativism and Pyrrhonian scepticism. It is argued that a fundamental argument for contemporary epistemic relativism derives from the Pyrrhonian problem of the criterion. Pyrrhonian scepticism is compared and contrasted with Cartesian scepticism about the external world and Humean scepticism about induction. Epistemic relativism is characterized as relativism due to the variation of epistemic norms, and is contrasted with other forms of cognitive relativism, such as truth relativism, conceptual relativism and ontological relativism. An argument from the Pyrrhonian problem of the criterion to epistemic relativism is presented, and is contrasted with three other arguments for epistemic relativism. It is argued that the argument from the criterion is the most fundamental argument for epistemic relativism. Finally, it is noted how the argument of the present paper fits with the author’s previous suggestion that a particularist response to the Pyrrhonian sceptic may be combined with a naturalistic view of epistemic warrant to meet the challenge of epistemic relativism.     

Successful visual epistemic representation

In this paper, I characterize visual epistemic representations as concrete two- or three-dimensional tools for conveying information about aspects of their target systems or phenomena of interest. I outline two features of successful visual epistemic representation: that the vehicle of representation contain sufficiently accurate information about the phenomenon of interest for the user's purpose, and that it convey this information to the user in a manner that makes it readily available to her. I argue that actual epistemic representation may involve tradeoffs between these features and is successful to the extent that they are present.