New View On Induction: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » New View On Induction » New View On Induction

New View On Induction
I'm Against Hume.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

New View On Induction

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 390

Posted 09/22/09 - 07:40 PM:	#31
YadaYada I do, contrary to what you say, match Hume's view on induction exactly as he has written it. I cite his "Enquiry" down to the very last mark. Can you please tell me what there's supposed to be about that Billiard example (post #19) of his that I can't understand? Perhaps, you can answer my question to you from post #27. The Problem of Induction is a classical problem in philosophy of science and since it's still standing, I've been attacking it (it has fallen?). Even if I'm Kierkegaard, the problem is obviously open for attacks. It doesn't matter where you come from. If you read the whole thread, you will know that I also have personal experience in mind, but this personal experience in my examples is limited to "a single span of time, instance" and thus avoids induction altogether. I use this "a single span of time, instance" for all it's worth, of course, and I get certain results from that. You are probably right about Hume in what you write, but my perception, intelligence tells me I'm dealing blows to the guy. I'd like you to make the quotes if you bother. I've already quoted him twice. If you refer to the Paradox of the Ravens, it's going to stay there what concerns our definite knowledge of possible (other worldly Ravens and so) particulars. YadaYada wrote: Here, you are assuming (, inductively inferring from the few laws we do have,) that all of nature is lawful. This is very wrong! There's absolutely no inductive reasoning from myself in this thread! You'd better quote me! Concerning logics, you better point out what logic that doesn't conform to nature. I admit I have limited knowledge of logics, but what I get of Riemann in response to Euclid and fuzzy logic in response to "classic" logic is that the matter is complimentary, first and foremost. In the case of this "instant", I've been writing it wrongly and I've tried to correct this in post #18. I have also corrected it on my website. I'm really dependent on "a single span of time, instance" in order to make it work. Lastly, I don't try to redefine knowledge. All I want to do is to get rid of induction, Problem of Induction. To my understanding, philosophy is supposed to be timeless and not some kind of fashion! If there's something true to say, one is expecting the philosopher to say it. It doesn't matter what "philosophical domain" I'm in, I still have to respect Hume in that he has tried his utmost, honestly. Edited by Aetixintro on 09/23/09 - 11:39 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 390

Posted 09/22/09 - 11:27 PM:	#32
Another point: How can one definitely not say that Hume's is underdetermined? I bet one can't! How can one say that my non-induction theory isn't underdetermined? Because I establish basic aspects of nature that renders my theory reflexive. Why or how should nature underdetermine itself? (This seems loopy, I think, but it's just an idea.)
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 09/23/09 - 05:51 AM:	#33
Cadrache wrote: Let's just say I disagree with the term 'qualified.' My friend - who we'll claim is a psychic - is all I need to prove that I am a qualified psychic. (I love this smilie) That's the kind of social relativism that gave Aristotle's science a bad name. To establish the fact that women have fewer teeth than men, we just take a survey of qualified philosophers, then the mid-point of the most extreme opinions must be right. But that is just how modern science works! People with doctorates are qualified to be official experts. Some wiseguy priest comes up with the opinion that there was a Big Bang. Nobody takes his self-serving interpretationn too seriously. But after a bunch of particulars are collected, some quite by accident, most (but not all) qualified experts who call themselves physicists become convinced that he was right, after all. So the Big Bang is elected to become an iconic fact of culture. Edited by YadaYada on 09/23/09 - 06:10 AM
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 390

Posted 09/23/09 - 08:05 AM:	#34
Rortabend in Philosophy Now forum, http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3302&start=30 is demanding that I show what "necessary connections of nature" are and how I arrive at them without induction. Here it is: I've never been thinking that when in "a single span of time, instance" I make certain considerations of nature that I would have to defend the "necessary connections in nature" (I therefore used "Finito" because I've been thinking I've been justified in literature and blatantly so. This may be mistaken in my approach, I'm sorry!). One note: If I consider this "single span of time, instance" to each "kind" of separate "happening" in nature, I claim that I still escape the induction. Alright, (when being in "a single span of time, instance") 1. I exist in the world, I see colours, substance and an incredible number of impressions, 2. I have this body I can feel and I can use it to feel the external world, 3. My body doesn't explode, but is perfectly whole through this time-frame, 4. What I see in this scenery (which may be all sorts) are patterns that I can relate to just as my body, there are no objects emerging in thin air, no sudden levitation, there's calmness and persistent objects, 5. Am I surprised in this environment? Basically not! The balls roll on the pool table when they are being moved, I sense, feel other people when I'm being touched and I feel objects against my body when I touch them, lean on them, lie on them and so on, I also sense gravity as I raise myself from the floor or bench, I sense gravity when I drop a Billiard-ball to the floor or on the pool table. Depending on your "first" "single span of time, instance" as a cognising mind and according to circumstances, there are therefore numerous instances you can draw from it. Your body is whole! It doesn't levitate. It doesn't rupture as such! The arm doesn't loosen from it and floats off in the air. You can breathe! You feel hungry! You discover you can eat! You can feel your stomach being filled! Unnecessary to say, perhaps, I think Merleau-Ponty's "Primacy of Perception" is the kind of angle I'm thinking about. The conclusion is that there are many inferences to make in "a single span of time, instance" when considering "necessary connections in nature". Although perceptions and cognitions may be very naive in the beginning, they uncover incredibly much from those instances not normally thought about because nature appears natural. Consistency and coherency are very important features of our minds, but how often do we consider it, even when we think of what we've thought? Surely unusual considerations, but they break down induction! (Finito! ) Rortabend also says "...if your necessary connections can be shown to exist then this solves the problem of induction." I've been thinking people have considered it obvious, but I've been maybe wrong in this. This post should then show that the "necessary connections in nature" are for certain! Edited by Aetixintro on 09/23/09 - 08:25 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/23/09 - 09:51 AM:	#35
YadaYada... Yada... But you have an or function! This means that you have to prove both that the qualified person and the personal experience in question is false. And you can't technically do that. The function of 'observation' is through a function called scientific method (in today's incarnation.) The idea is that you can repeat an experience. If an experience is not- repeatable then it is considered false. Yet the non-psychic scientist is not a psychic! Therefore the actual private experience is flawed from the physcality starting point to begin with. Under the false assumption that private expereince is always public knowledge. (ie. A slightly different form of induction. Most of the time it doesn't cause a problem)
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/23/09 - 10:01 AM:	#36
Alexintro... why not take out the human component? The part that you and YadaYada are not connecting on is physicality. My lovely little rock won't fall.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 35
Total Posts: 390

Posted 09/23/09 - 11:19 AM:	#37
Cadrache wrote: Alexintro... why not take out the human component? Hmm... yes! Hi-hi-hi-hi. Very funny! Cadrache wrote: The part that you and YadaYada are not connecting on is physicality. My lovely little rock won't fall. I'm very unsure where YadaYada at all. It may not be wise to take more than a mouthful! Adding the controversies of physicality is beyond this thread!
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/23/09 - 12:06 PM:	#38
Not really... look at form, not physicality. We remove the human factor not because they are human but because they are different experiences. Claiming that Hume is right because Locke existed prior to Hume has nothing at all to do with whether or not the theory proposed by hume is right or wrong. Claiming that Hume is right because the prior theory was right has nothing to do with whether or not the newer theory is right or wrong.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/23/09 - 12:13 PM:	#39
Let's add the whole 'flapping your arms while falling' into the mix. Simply because somebody before me did this and then became a relative pancake does not coincide that all other private experiences N+1 will observe the same phenomena simply because we converted private experience n-1 to public knowledge. Coincidently... I had a parachute on at the time.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 09/23/09 - 01:25 PM:	#40
Cadrache wrote: Not really... look at form, not physicality. We remove the human factor not because they are human but because they are different experiences. I love physicality, but I wouldn't want to remove the human factor! Edited by YadaYada on 09/23/09 - 01:41 PM
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.