Late Scholastic Analyses of Inductive Reasoning

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F20%3A00532254" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/20:00532254 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20201712" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20201712</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20201712" target="_blank" >10.5840/studneoar20201712</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Late Scholastic Analyses of Inductive Reasoning

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The late scholastic era was, among others, contemporary to the “emergence of probability”, the German academic philosophy from Leibniz to Kant, and the introduction of Newtonian physics. Within this era, two branches of the late-scholastic analysis of induction can be identified, one which can be thought of as a continual development of earlier scholastic approaches, while the other one absorbed influences of early modern philosophy, mathematics, and physics. Both branches of scholastic philosophy share the terminology of modalities, probability, and forms of (inductive) arguments. Furthermore, induction was commonly considered valid as a result of being a covert syllogism. Last but not least, there appears to be a difference in emphasis between the two traditions’ analyses of induction: while Tolomei discussed the theological presuppositions of induction, Amort’s “leges contingentium” exemplify the principles of induction by aleatory phenomena and Boscovich’s rules for inductive arguments are predominately concerned with the generalisation of macro-level observations to the micro-level.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Late Scholastic Analyses of Inductive Reasoning

Popis výsledku anglicky

The late scholastic era was, among others, contemporary to the “emergence of probability”, the German academic philosophy from Leibniz to Kant, and the introduction of Newtonian physics. Within this era, two branches of the late-scholastic analysis of induction can be identified, one which can be thought of as a continual development of earlier scholastic approaches, while the other one absorbed influences of early modern philosophy, mathematics, and physics. Both branches of scholastic philosophy share the terminology of modalities, probability, and forms of (inductive) arguments. Furthermore, induction was commonly considered valid as a result of being a covert syllogism. Last but not least, there appears to be a difference in emphasis between the two traditions’ analyses of induction: while Tolomei discussed the theological presuppositions of induction, Amort’s “leges contingentium” exemplify the principles of induction by aleatory phenomena and Boscovich’s rules for inductive arguments are predominately concerned with the generalisation of macro-level observations to the micro-level.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA17-12408S" target="_blank" >GA17-12408S: Pravděpodobnostní argumentace v pozdně scholastické logice</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Studia Neoaristotelica

ISSN

1214-8407

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

17

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

32

Strana od-do

35-66

Kód UT WoS článku

000619558700002

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85096331835