• frank
    14.5k
    Because there is a logical inference that since it has worked in the past, we may as well give it a try.LD Saunders

    Are you sure that's a logical inference?
  • LD Saunders
    312
    Frank: Yes, I am sure that is a logical inference. Sure, there is the problem with the circularity of inductive reasoning, but, this is what science heavily relies upon. Would it really make sense that if B follows A, we should then no longer try doing A to bring about B? If we had a tire low on air pressure and we raised the pressure by blowing air into it, then should we try sucking air out to raise the pressure next time?
  • frank
    14.5k
    Would it really make sense that if B follows A, we should then no longer try doing A to bring about B?LD Saunders

    There just isn't any logical argument that allows us to conclude that the world of the future will resemble the world of the past.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    When I first saw this thread on the list, by the way, I was guessing it was going to be a proposed forum name change.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.