9

You're right to see some resonances between intuitionism and Kant. However, there's no uncontroversial sense in which you could blithely categorize Kant as an intuitionist. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone do it, as a matter of sociological note. More instructive, I think, than trying to get Kant to fit the intuitionist picture is to explore the subtle ...


3

You are not alone in finding difficulty in distinguishing abductive from inductive reasoning. It doesn't help that 'abductive' inference is a relatively new term in philosophy - historically much more recent than 'deductive' or 'inductive' - or that there is no canonical statement of it. Will you bear with me a bit while I try out some contrasts ? In a ...


2

Probability is something that must be considered at a specific point in time, otherwise it would have no purpose. Considering this Universe is based on duality, of balance of energy (because it otherwise could not maintain its integrity), it can be safely said that the default probability for something unknown is 50%. Therefore, just not know the ...


2

Hintikka seems to be referring to a familar predicament in modern analytic philosophy, and this is the apparent co-dependency of meaning and truth. That truth depends on meaning, goes without saying. Truth-bearers, the entities to which we attribute truth values (like assertions, propositions, statements) are meaningful entities. In order, in other words, ...


2

Induction is about the probability of something. Abduction is an assumption as to what is the most likely answer - it's a judgement call. ABDUCTION #1: The bones of 3 llamas were found in Cave X; therefore the vertebrae found in Cave X are likely from a llama. (since we already found 3 llamas, it's likely that the bones found are also llamas) ABDUCTION #2: ...


2

I'd agree that these forms of inference overlap in all sorts of ways but they can often be distinguished. I'm no logician (!) but have an opinion. I'd agree with Sarah's answer although am not sure the induction example is quite right. I see abduction (like Peirce) as inference to the best explanation, but not a proof. It is a method much used by ...


1

Let's start with a reference, then think things through indepenently: Leibniz presents the Principle of Sufficient Reason as holding universally within the created world. He gives us various formulations of it; examples are 'Nothing is without a reason', and 'Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason, that is, nothing happens without ...


1

How to know when an assumption has been reduced to its most basic form? I will interpret this as how to know when an assumption is minimal and useful for making progress scientifically. When you have identified enough unique, orthogonal (independent) parts or properties of your hypothesized model that allow you to make specific, reliable (greater than ...


1

Fundamental reference : Chance , Love and Logic by C.S. Peirce ( at archive.org). See: Part I, chapter 6 " Deduction, induction and hypothesis"). Peirce is the one who coined this term " abduction". See also : article " reasoning" ( by Peirce) in Baldwin's dictionary of philosophy and psychology. Short answer Both are "ampliative"; but while induction ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible