Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
T h e Skeptical Background
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
10
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
about the illustration. If the aim of predictive inference is one of "attaining correct predictions," in the weak sense of being right more often than
not in the long run, there can be no a priori guarantee that the "standard
inductive procedure" is sufficient.
Transition to a Moditied Task
The practicalists could hardly have failed to notice the difficulty explained above. When Feigl and others think that the formal step in the
"vindication" succeeds, they sometimes have in view another and different
task. In terms of our illustration, it can be stated as follows:
(T2) So to predict the characters of successive births that the proportion
of successful predictions shall eventually remain greater than one
half, in case the relative frequency m / n of male births tends to a
limit other than 1.
It will be noticed that this new version of the inductive task differs from
the first only in restricting the intended inferences to cases in which births
of one or the other kind eventually continue to predominate.
Since the new task is less ambitious than the old, there is a better prospect of finding a conditional performance procedure. Indeed, the "formal
step" in vindicating P1 in relation to T2 now succeeds. For if the condition
expressed in the italicized clause in the statement of T2 is fulfilled, the
predictor will, sooner or later, be constantly anticipating the occurrence of
one and the same character, and in so doing will be right most of the time.
If the relative frequency of the eventually more frequent character converges to a limit greater than one half, as stipulated, the over-all proportion
of successful predictions must converge to the same ratio.
Is there any good reason why T2, rather than T1, should be taken to
be a proper formulation of the aim of rational prediction? An attempt to
render plausible the transition from the latter to the former might run as
follows: "If the relative frequencies of occurrence of the two characters
(M and F) do not converge to limits, predictions of the characters of
subsequent births can have no grounds and are mere guesses. Only if births
of one sex ultimately predominate, can we ever be in a position to make
rational predictions. Now, by following P1 we ensure that we shall be
making rational predictions, if the time ever comes when that will be
possible."
This line of thought would be acceptable if it could be shown that
rational prediction necessarily entailed adoption of the procedure P~, i.e.,
if it were self-contradictory to assert that a man was predicting rationally
while not following P~. But this is not so. If a forecaster of births were to
11
12
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
13
14
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
made toward achieving it. The immortal predictor is, as it were, always
on his way, but to a goal he has no hope of approaching, and with nothing
to show whether he is on the right track. Even for an immortal, such a
"task" would be unreasonable. But in any case, we are not immortals: and
it is hard to imagine why we should conceive our finite tasks of prediction
upon so uninviting a model.
CAN INDUCTION
BE V I N D I C A T E D ?
15
effect, that we have " n o t h i n g to lose" by assuming that "practical convergenee" will occur in the finite series of events we shall in fact observe.
B u t in a later paper (10) he confesses t h a t this a t t e m p t was a failure a n d
he can offer no alternative?
T h e fact is t h a t the task of making p r e d o m i n a n t l y correct predictions
in a finite n u m b e r of trials is, on practicalist principles, insoluble. O f no
strategy for the finite task can it be said, along " p r a g m a t i c " lines: "Pursue
this strategy and, if there is a solution of the p r o b l e m you have set yourself,
you will eventually arrive sufficiently d o s e to that solution for practical
purposes." T h e skeptical premises accepted by the praetiealist yield completely skeptical conclusions concerning the prospects of rational prediction.
But this need disturb only those w h o think there is no reply to skepticism.
Received January 28, 1958
NOTES
1A sense of 'probably true' in which a prediction about the unobserved strictly follows from observation statements is irrelevant to the present discussion.
21 used this label in Problems of Analysis (2). By a "practiealist" I mean anybody
who accepts a "pragmatic justification" of induction, whether or not he is also skeptical
about the possibility of empirical knowledge.
"The various attempts (by Keynes, Broad, Nicod, Russell, and others) to deduce
or render probable the principle of induction on the basis of some very general assumptions concerning the structure of the world seem to me, if not metaphysical and hence
irrelevant, merely to beg the question at issue" (Feigl, 4, p. 135). Cf. also Salmon's
arguments against inductive support of inductive rules (9, pp. 45--47). I hope to discuss
the question of inductive support of inductive rules in a separate paper.
' " T h e practiealist does not hold that induction must work. He holds that if any
method works, induction does" (9, p. 35). I think the contra-positive, "If induction does
not work, no method works," is less misleading than Salmon's formula, since it does
less to suggest that some method will work.
SA "conditional performance procedure" must not be confused with a "decision procedure" in logic. The latter is an effective procedure for determining whether a given
theorem is or is not a theorem of the logical system in question. On the other hand,
if P has been shown to be a conditional performance procedure with respect to T, it
is not even known whether following P will lead to the performance of T. And even if
T can be performed, and following P does lead to the accomplishment of the task, no
upper bound can be supplied in advance for the number of operations that will be needed.
This rule might be inferred from Salmon's two "rules of prediction" (8, pp. 220,
221): "In any sequence, predict that those events which began more frequently in the
long run will happen more frequently in the short run" and "Predict that the relative
frequency in the short run approximates, sufficiently for practical purposes, the probability of the events in the total sequence."
7 Salmon takes me to task (9, p. 37) for claiming "that the practicalists have unduly
restricted their definition of the aims of cognitive inquiry." But I am unconvinced by
his gesture in the direction of Reichenbach's work. At any rate, it seems clear that the
practicalist must somehow narrow the general task, T1, if he is to have any hope of
showing that P1 is a conditional performance procedure.
8 Salmon goes beyond Reichenbach by showing that there are infinitely many
16
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
"regular" asymptotic rules. He adds, quite correctly, that "the variety of such rules is
sufficient to make estimates of the limit of the frequency completely arbitrary" (l 0;
p. 181).
g Salmon's conclusion is "the treatment of the problem offered in The Short Run
[i.e., 8] is totally inadequate. Among the roles justifiable by the arguments there presented we can find one which would justify any consistent prediction whatsoever about
the short run. The whole difficulty seems to stem from the introduction of the limit
of the relative frequency as a mediator between the finite observed sample and the short
run prediction" (10, pp. 184-85).
REFERENCES
1. Black, Max. "The Justification of Induction," in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca,
N.Y.: Comell University Press, 1949.
2. Black, Max. " 'Pragmatic' Justifications of Induction," in Problems of Analysis.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1954.
3. Carnap, Rudolf. The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1952.
4. Feigl, Herbert. "De Principiis Non Disputandum . . ." in Max Black, ed., Philosophical Analysis. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comell University Press, 1950.
5. Feigl, Herbert. "Scientific Method without Metaphysical Presuppositions," Philosophical Studies, 5:17-28 (1954).
6. Feigl, Herbert. "Validation and Vindication," in W. Sellars and J. Hospers, eds.,
Readings in Ethical Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1952.
7. Reichenbach, Hans. The Theory of Probability. Berkeley: University pf California
Press, 19'[9.
8. Salmon, Wesley C. "The Short Run," Philosophy of Science, 22:214-21 (1955).
9. Salmon, Wesley C. "Should We Attempt to Justify Induction?" Philosophical
Studies, 8:33-48 (1957).
I0. Salmon, Wesley C. "The Predictive Inference," Philosophy ol Science, 24:180-90
(1957).
PHILOSOPHICALSTUDIESis published six times during the academic year (October, December,
January, February, April, ~unc). Each volume begins with the January number, and subscriptions
run by the volume. Editorial Office: Philosophical Studies, 100 Wesbrook Hall, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis 14-, Minnesota. Manuscripts, as a rule, should not exceed 3000 words.