Yes. Empiricism is about what the world demonstrates and not what principles you hold about it.So his empiricism rests on his taking experience as the starting point for knowledge instead of basing it on innate ideas or a priori thinking. — Perplexed
If induction is not based on a rational principle then how does one go from a constant conjunction to an assertion of probability?
In fact I think the sceptical implications of Hume’s ideas are reflected by the acceptance of the provisional nature of scientific hypotheses — Wayfarer
That's not true. We also have abduction (leaving aside deduction atm).That is all we have. — charleton
This seems to make our claims of knowledge groundless and any assertions of probability merely cumulative of previous experiences and hence subjective or psychological. — Perplexed
The universe is inherently probabilistic. — Rich
Don't buy into this free will clap trap, as this flies in the face of the massive advances in science of the last 250 years which assert determinism. — charleton
No doubt building on the lead of the cave man who grunted, "Maybe food will come this way." — tim wood
What are the chances that the future will be like the past? — unenlightened
chances are it will be like the past — unenlightened
The leap is that the pattern continues into the invisible future. — unenlightened
It is not a leap. It is brought about by habitual recognition. — Rich
leap that reason cannot justify — unenlightened
So if we had to make a bet, which option would it be wise or rational to bet on? That the future is like the past, or that it will be different? And why?Talk of probabilities rather misses Hume's point.
What are the chances that the future will be like the past? Well the future has always been like the past in the past, so if the future is anything like the past, chances are it will be like the past.
One has to assume the conclusion even to reach a probable result. — unenlightened
So if we had to make a bet, which option would it be wise or rational to bet on? That the future is like the past, or that it will be different? And why? — Agustino
When you say that it would be unwise, don't you really mean that it would be irrational? It would go against our reason? I mean certainly if you saw someone making the opposite bet, you'd say they have lost their mind wouldn't you?We do have to make a bet, and we do bet that things will go on as before. And it would be unwise to do otherwise. — unenlightened
I think what you really mean is that there is no necessity that the future will be like the past. Sure, in that way, induction cannot be justified through deduction if that's what you were intending to do. However, you must concede that it is overwhelmingly more likely, given the evidence, that the future will be like the past. We have a lot of data points indicating this trend. There is no necessity that the trend will continue, but we have no reason to doubt that it will. Therefore it is irrational to doubt it in the absence of a reason.But rationally there is no reason to do so; except that there is nothing else to go by. — unenlightened
However, you must concede that it is overwhelmingly more likely, given the evidence, that the future will be like the past. — Agustino
So when you have a trend that seems to indicate something, do you bet that the next data point will be different or the same as the trend? You have reason to presume that the next data point will be X (since that's what the trend indicates) and no reason to presume it would be anything else.No, I don't have to. You have to provide some evidence or argument that does not assume what it seeks to prove. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.