The paper aims at the rehabilitation of deductive reasoning. As a paradigm of reliable reasoning, it should be applicable in every confirmation context. In particular, it should transmit inductive justification, so that if D justifies a hypothesis H, then D also justifies all deductive conclusions from H. Nevertheless, most current philosophers of science reject such a transmission principle as false. They argue against it by providing apparent counter-examples and also by showing that it is incompatible with common confirmation theories such as HD-confirmation and Bayesianism. I argue in the opposite direction that we should stick to the transmission principle and revise instead our justification theories.
How to Cite
confirmation, epistemic justification, transmission of justification, theory choice, Bayesianism, tacking paradox, raven paradox
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License.