Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Popper, Induction, and Falsification

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:26:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As far as I'm concerned, Induction is based on probability, not certainty. You can state that there is a high probability of the sun rising tomorrow. If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, you wouldn't be wrong because you didn't guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:31:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

Oh, how I love philosophy!
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:47:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 11:26:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, Induction is based on probability, not certainty. You can state that there is a high probability of the sun rising tomorrow. If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow, you wouldn't be wrong because you didn't guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That's basically how Popper seems to approach the issue. The problem of induction was thought only to be a problem for justificationist epistemology. Falsification is anti-falsificationist so induction doesn't pose much of a problem.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2012 11:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's imposibble to prove anything with 100% certainity.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:47:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

I know Popper used the phrasing, but I don't think Popper actually saw his falsification as a "solution" to the problem of induction, it was more of a pragmatic way forward for science. He completely agreed with Hume that in the end, induction is not logically justifiable, so I think his falsification method was more of a manner in which the probability of truth is increased, but admittedly, it is never conclusive.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 10:55:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:47:57 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

I know Popper used the phrasing, but I don't think Popper actually saw his falsification as a "solution" to the problem of induction, it was more of a pragmatic way forward for science. He completely agreed with Hume that in the end, induction is not logically justifiable, so I think his falsification method was more of a manner in which the probability of truth is increased, but admittedly, it is never conclusive.

It depends on how you define "solution". If y mean justification for knowledge based on induction then no, Popper was anti-justificationist. But if you mean being able to ground knowledge in light of the induction problem it would seem he thought that. But honestly I haven't read much about it so you may be right.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:29:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everything ends up inductive which is why only probabilities and no knowledge can exist.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:38:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:29:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Everything ends up inductive which is why only probabilities and no knowledge can exist.

Isn't the proposition "There is a high probability that proposition X is correct." just as open to the problem as the content itself?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:44:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:38:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:29:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Everything ends up inductive which is why only probabilities and no knowledge can exist.

Isn't the proposition "There is a high probability that proposition X is correct." just as open to the problem as the content itself?

The problem of what? Almost all arguments have problems because we always operate under the assumption that humans posses the correct functions in processing and understanding logic and that logic itself is absolute when we can't possibly come close to proving either.

(And I'm not sure high probabilities can exist either)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 7:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:44:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:38:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:29:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Everything ends up inductive which is why only probabilities and no knowledge can exist.

Isn't the proposition "There is a high probability that proposition X is correct." just as open to the problem as the content itself?

The problem of what?

The problem of justified belief. A probabitist would say we can only know things with certain probability but that doesn't bypass the problem. You're still trying to justify knowledge, just in a different form. Instead of the proposition itself, you're operating under the assumption that (A) the probabilitist model of epistemology is *justified* and (B) that the probability assigned to a proposition is justified.

Almost all arguments have problems because we always operate under the assumption that humans posses the correct functions in processing and understanding logic and that logic itself is absolute when we can't possibly come close to proving either.

Yeps.

(And I'm not sure high probabilities can exist either)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 7:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:03:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:44:24 PM, phantom wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:38:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:29:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Everything ends up inductive which is why only probabilities and no knowledge can exist.

Isn't the proposition "There is a high probability that proposition X is correct." just as open to the problem as the content itself?

The problem of what?

The problem of justified belief. A probabitist would say we can only know things with certain probability but that doesn't bypass the problem. You're still trying to justify knowledge, just in a different form. Instead of the proposition itself, you're operating under the assumption that (A) the probabilitist model of epistemology is *justified* and (B) that the probability assigned to a proposition is justified.

Knowledge requires certainty so I don't think probabilities can entail any type of knowledge. My opinion is either logic is absolute or it is not. Nothing really points either way too much, except it just seems intuitive that it is. It just seems most likely. That's terrible grounding for belief I realize, but it's all we've got and you can't prove either side. So I hold the very weak belief that logic is absolute simply on balance of probability. Really there's not much to back denial or affirmation. From there I can make probabilistic claims because I operate under the weak belief that logic is absolute and our brains process reality correctly. In a way it's almost hypothetical. So yes, I do believe we can operate under small probabilities instead of remaining complete agnostics to everything.


Almost all arguments have problems because we always operate under the assumption that humans posses the correct functions in processing and understanding logic and that logic itself is absolute when we can't possibly come close to proving either.

Yeps.

(And I'm not sure high probabilities can exist either)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 7:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:20:48 PM, phantom wrote:

Knowledge requires certainty so I don't think probabilities can entail any type of knowledge. My opinion is either logic is absolute or it is not. Nothing really points either way too much, except it just seems intuitive that it is. It just seems most likely. That's terrible grounding for belief I realize, but it's all we've got and you can't prove either side.

I've been looking into the transcendental argument a bit as of late. It attempts to ground logical laws by reference to the ontological primacy of God. I realize that you can't on your own justify a meta-epistemological belief positively i.e., you can't affirm epistemological nihilism or foundationalism or even logical laws as method. Something outside of human reasoning is necessary. So I'm not decided on it but I think it's something to look into. I think logical laws will either have to be grounded in something like God or they're mental categories and standards of how our minds operate. Both seem possible at this point.

So I hold the very weak belief that logic is absolute simply on balance of probability. Really there's not much to back denial or affirmation. From there I can make probabilistic claims because I operate under the weak belief that logic is absolute and our brains process reality correctly. In a way it's almost hypothetical. So yes, I do believe we can operate under small probabilities instead of remaining complete agnostics to everything.

I understand this and also understand that concluding that there's no grounding for logic really isn't all too practical in application. I'm just saying the probablistic paradigm seems to be just as vulnerable to the problem of grounding as the logical one in that you still have to meta-justify it somehow. Where does probablistic reasoning come from and what reason do we have to think this is more likely than that? It basically all boils down to you either saying it's more probable that the probablistic paradigm is in some sense justified (in which case you've simply circled back) or you attempt to logically or rationally ground it in which case you're then in the same situation as the logical foundationalists.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/27/2012 10:37:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
David Hume's central blow to epistemology seems to have been his "problem of induction" wherein he pointed out that there was no logical reason to assume that future events will resemble past ones. His example was that the sun will rise tomorrow. We see it rise everyday but there's no reason for us to logically justify that this would mean it will rise tomorrow. It could easily fail to do so and there be no logical contradiction.

Karl Popper proposed what he thought to be the solution to the problem, namely falsification. The theory goes that you can never infer the future logically from the past, but you can assume it will insofar as it never doesn't rise. So the proposition "The sun will rise tomorrow" is either true or false and tomorrow we'll know which. As long as the proposition is falsifiable, we could learn if it was true or false.

The only problem I've heard is that the theory doesn't hold up to its own standards i.e., you can't falsify such a theory. The same problem can be used against logic. You can't apply epistemological standards to justify meta-epistemological ones. What was Popper's response to the problem or other falsificationists response to it?

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 8:45:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:20:48 PM, phantom wrote:

Knowledge requires certainty so I don't think probabilities can entail any type of knowledge.

I think this is an unfounded assumption that is somewhat self-refuting since you can't be certain that it is the case. There is almost no practical knowledge that can't be challanged if absolute certainty is a requirement. Such an infallible stance results in very little knowledge, science can't provide knowledge, there can be no a posteriori knowledge, the only things you can actually call knowledge are detached and abstract truths with no correspondence to reality, and it's not even clear that abstract deductive truths can be justified as absolutely certain. It renders knowledge practically meaningless and removes the utility of actually having knowledge doesn't it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:12:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:33:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I think logical laws will either have to be grounded in something like God or they're :mental categories and standards of how our minds operate. Both seem possible at :this point.

Mental categories of what if not God?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:19:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:12:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:33:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:


I think logical laws will either have to be grounded in something like God or they're :mental categories and standards of how our minds operate. Both seem possible at :this point.

Mental categories of what if not God?

I mean it as them simply being the way that our minds work, for whatever reason. Btw do you have any specific articles or books on the topic you would recommend?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:50:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)

Methodological = ontological in the context of proof?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 10:07:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 9:50:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)

Methodological = ontological in the context of proof?

Right now you are contending that we can talk about the future using information from the past in an ontologically true sense. While this is not necessarily a brute assertion, it is definitely not a pragmatic one. That means that your justification for historical contingency cannot simply be "because without it we can't do x (ex. scientific method)." That would be a methodological claim.

So you need an argument for induction that is not based on "because I wanna do x (excluding Kantian categories of understanding)."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 6:59:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 7:33:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I understand this and also understand that concluding that there's no grounding for logic really isn't all too practical in application. I'm just saying the probabilistic paradigm seems to be just as vulnerable to the problem of grounding as the logical one in that you still have to meta-justify it somehow. Where does probabilistic reasoning come from and what reason do we have to think this is more likely than that? It basically all boils down to you either saying it's more probable that the probabilistic paradigm is in some sense justified (in which case you've simply circled back) or you attempt to logically or rationally ground it in which case you're then in the same situation as the logical foundationalists.

I think you've hit on the dilemma here, but perhaps you just aren't recognizing how far the circularity of reasoning goes. You recognize that the fact that there is no grounding for logic isn't practical in application, this of course applies to both deductive and inductive logic. The truth value of any knowledge seems to be contingent upon both deductive and inductive logic in the end. I will contend that self reference is circular and really constitutes no reference at all, so deductive logic and inductive logic cannot be self referential, and in fact, they are necessarily referential to each other.

Consequently, deductive logic cannot be validated deductively, the only way to demonstrate the truth value of deductive logic is by inductive verification, which has become problematic by quantum physics which seems to be telling us that deductive logic is not a feature of reality in all cases. Deductive logic is axiomatic, based on axioms considered to be necessary truths, and there is no reason that inductive logic can't be established as justified by the inclusion of deductively derived axioms and therefore, similarly based on axioms considered to be necessary truths.

We can deductively arrive at the requisite necessary truths of inductive inference by recognizing the mathematical consequences of the laws of large numbers, frequencies, and probabilities. We can provide a strong deductive foundation for certain axioms of induction such as the principle of the uniformity of nature, which can't be demonstrated, but can be accepted as an axiomatic necessary truth in the same way that the deductive axioms are accepted as necessary truths.

In the end, I think we need to recognize that deductive logic and inductive logic are "polar" opposites. To say that "opposites" are "polar" is to say much more than they are opposed or separated; it is to say that they constitute a whole. Our mind perceives polar opposites as mutually exclusive opposites, but that distinction is only in our minds, it is an illusion. Our thoughts and our language divide them but these opposites are artificial constructs of our minds, in reality they are describing an unbroken whole. The problem is that in its search for brevity and clarity, the mind describes a complex or circular idea by reference to the terms, ends, or extremities of a single unified whole.

I think all we really need to do is understand that deductive and inductive logic only appear to be opposites, they are in fact inseparable opposites; they constitute a whole. They are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature. Our mind thinks of them as basically separate from each other but in reality they constitute a whole in the same way that the earth"s poles are the ends of a single entity. There is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described. Polar opposites don"t even exist without each other, they are contingent upon each other, you just can"t have the one without the other. Polar opposites are like the two sides of a coin, or the two ends of a stick; they reference two opposing aspects of one and the same thing.

In the end, we are talking about the foundations of proper reasoning, which has both deductive and inductive aspects, and isolating the mutually referential aspects of deductive and inductive logic is self defeating. We do not reason by one or the other, it is the interplay of those polar opposites that properly results in reasoning.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:07:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:50:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)

Methodological = ontological in the context of proof?

Right now you are contending that we can talk about the future using information from the past in an ontologically true sense. While this is not necessarily a brute assertion, it is definitely not a pragmatic one. That means that your justification for historical contingency cannot simply be "because without it we can't do x (ex. scientific method)." That would be a methodological claim.

So you need an argument for induction that is not based on "because I wanna do x (excluding Kantian categories of understanding)."

Nonono -- I'm not justifying it by saying that it's required by the scientific method; I'm justifying it, because the scientific method presupposes it. The scientific method in this regard is a special case, because it's not like, say, driving a car or writing an academic thesis. It is, instead, the basis behind our entire understanding of reality. Therefore, a better way to say it is that historical consistency provides the foundation for our understanding of reality. Going back to Spinko's initial rebuttal, that makes the scientific method something much more than "something I like." It, instead, makes it possible for there to be a such thing as engineering.

Moreover, it makes it possible to interact with reality. Our entire interpretation and understanding of reality hinges on constancy -- with every moment that passes, things will abide by a general logic that coincides, so that past conditions will literally resemble historical ones. Let me give you some examples. You can literally assert that while circumambulating throughout your house, the floor will be under your foot with each step, even if you're not looking at the floor the entire time. You can logically prove that just like every other person who has died in such a way, you too will die from jumping from a skyscraper in a U.S. city, if you land on the concrete.

In fact, I see no reason why someone couldn't logically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, just as it rose today, by simply citing the kinetic attributes of the macro-arrangement. With no applied alterations to the arrangement, Newton's Second Law tells us that it will remain precisely as it is. Moreover, that all depends on your interpretation of "tomorrow." The sun rises, because the earth is spinning. If the earth stopped spinning, then we'd all die. So, if the sun weren't to rise, there would be no "tomorrow." Ultimately, "tomorrow" is determined by the sun.

Of course, this depends on your placement on the earth. I should clarify and say that tomorrow is determined by the sun at the equator. There are places, as one draws closer to the poles, that have haphazard exposure to the sun. However, this haphazard exposure, which will result in inordinate amounts of time of both darkness and light (a statement that wouldn't make sense under the sort of thought you're proposing), can still be predicted to a rather precise degree, even to the point of changes over time.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 12:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 10:02:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:07:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:50:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)

Methodological = ontological in the context of proof?

Right now you are contending that we can talk about the future using information from the past in an ontologically true sense. While this is not necessarily a brute assertion, it is definitely not a pragmatic one. That means that your justification for historical contingency cannot simply be "because without it we can't do x (ex. scientific method)." That would be a methodological claim.

So you need an argument for induction that is not based on "because I wanna do x (excluding Kantian categories of understanding)."

Nonono -- I'm not justifying it by saying that it's required by the scientific method; I'm justifying it, because the scientific method presupposes it. The scientific method in this regard is a special case, because it's not like, say, driving a car or writing an academic thesis. It is, instead, the basis behind our entire understanding of reality. Therefore, a better way to say it is that historical consistency provides the foundation for our understanding of reality. Going back to Spinko's initial rebuttal, that makes the scientific method something much more than "something I like." It, instead, makes it possible for there to be a such thing as engineering.

Moreover, it makes it possible to interact with reality. Our entire interpretation and understanding of reality hinges on constancy -- with every moment that passes, things will abide by a general logic that coincides, so that past conditions will literally resemble historical ones. Let me give you some examples. You can literally assert that while circumambulating throughout your house, the floor will be under your foot with each step, even if you're not looking at the floor the entire time. You can logically prove that just like every other person who has died in such a way, you too will die from jumping from a skyscraper in a U.S. city, if you land on the concrete.

In fact, I see no reason why someone couldn't logically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, just as it rose today, by simply citing the kinetic attributes of the macro-arrangement. With no applied alterations to the arrangement, Newton's Second Law tells us that it will remain precisely as it is. Moreover, that all depends on your interpretation of "tomorrow." The sun rises, because the earth is spinning. If the earth stopped spinning, then we'd all die. So, if the sun weren't to rise, there would be no "tomorrow." Ultimately, "tomorrow" is determined by the sun.

Of course, this depends on your placement on the earth. I should clarify and say that tomorrow is determined by the sun at the equator. There are places, as one draws closer to the poles, that have haphazard exposure to the sun. However, this haphazard exposure, which will result in inordinate amounts of time of both darkness and light (a statement that wouldn't make sense under the sort of thought you're proposing), can still be predicted to a rather precise degree, even to the point of changes over time.

It's a bit anachronistic to refer to the "scientific method" as the basis behind our entire understanding of reality. The scientific method is just that, a method. There were means of understanding the universe before that as well, they just weren't very keen (i.e. earth's a flat disc).

"Moreover, it makes it possible to interact with reality. Our entire interpretation and understanding of reality hinges on constancy -- with every moment that passes, things will abide by a general logic that coincides, so that past conditions will literally resemble historical ones."

You're getting onto firmer ground here. Are you at all familiar with Kant's argument for causality? You're on the edge of it (to the extent where in my last post I had a paranthese bit about Kant but took it out). Take a look at this, and it may help your argument.
http://plato.stanford.edu...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 12:40:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 12:31:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/29/2012 10:02:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 10:07:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:50:46 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:47:28 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:43:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:42:28 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/28/2012 9:20:37 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:49:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:33:16 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/28/2012 8:02:08 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 7:55:56 PM, Ren wrote:

That is literally my contention with Hume.

And Hobbes.

It's the basis to science.

So, no.

Just saying science requires it doesn't equate to you showing that the connection is logically justified.

What?

Lol, what? Explain what you mean by this.

You said that assuming that the future represents the past is necessary for science (ambiguously defined but that's not my point). I remarked that all that does is sidestep the problem. Instead of actually providing logical justification you simply reject the problem entirely because if it can't be solved then the foundations of science would be shown to be unjustified and you wouldn't want that. That's not an argument, it's just you sticking to something you like in spite of rational criticism.

I think you probably don't understand what I mean.

Science (and by that, I unambiguously meant the scientific method) hinges on an understanding of reality based on past testing.

So, literally, one primary logical justification is historical consistency.

So essentially you're taking a pragmatic version. If you want to do x (scientific method), but x cannot occur without y being true (historical consistency). Since I want to do action x, y is assigned the value of true.

The pragmatic argument becomes more solid if you are arguing for methodological, not ontological, naturalism.

Lol, well, given I referenced the scientific method, I was referring to methodological naturalism; however, since you did mention pragmatism, that school of thought is primarily comprised of mathematicians, isn't it? ;)

Methodological = ontological in the context of proof?

Right now you are contending that we can talk about the future using information from the past in an ontologically true sense. While this is not necessarily a brute assertion, it is definitely not a pragmatic one. That means that your justification for historical contingency cannot simply be "because without it we can't do x (ex. scientific method)." That would be a methodological claim.

So you need an argument for induction that is not based on "because I wanna do x (excluding Kantian categories of understanding)."

Nonono -- I'm not justifying it by saying that it's required by the scientific method; I'm justifying it, because the scientific method presupposes it. The scientific method in this regard is a special case, because it's not like, say, driving a car or writing an academic thesis. It is, instead, the basis behind our entire understanding of reality. Therefore, a better way to say it is that historical consistency provides the foundation for our understanding of reality. Going back to Spinko's initial rebuttal, that makes the scientific method something much more than "something I like." It, instead, makes it possible for there to be a such thing as engineering.

Moreover, it makes it possible to interact with reality. Our entire interpretation and understanding of reality hinges on constancy -- with every moment that passes, things will abide by a general logic that coincides, so that past conditions will literally resemble historical ones. Let me give you some examples. You can literally assert that while circumambulating throughout your house, the floor will be under your foot with each step, even if you're not looking at the floor the entire time. You can logically prove that just like every other person who has died in such a way, you too will die from jumping from a skyscraper in a U.S. city, if you land on the concrete.

In fact, I see no reason why someone couldn't logically prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, just as it rose today, by simply citing the kinetic attributes of the macro-arrangement. With no applied alterations to the arrangement, Newton's Second Law tells us that it will remain precisely as it is. Moreover, that all depends on your interpretation of "tomorrow." The sun rises, because the earth is spinning. If the earth stopped spinning, then we'd all die. So, if the sun weren't to rise, there would be no "tomorrow." Ultimately, "tomorrow" is determined by the sun.

Of course, this depends on your placement on the earth. I should clarify and say that tomorrow is determined by the sun at the equator. There are places, as one draws closer to the poles, that have haphazard exposure to the sun. However, this haphazard exposure, which will result in inordinate amounts of time of both darkness and light (a statement that wouldn't make sense under the sort of thought you're proposing), can still be predicted to a rather precise degree, even to the point of changes over time.

It's a bit anachronistic to refer to the "scientific method" as the basis behind our entire understanding of reality. The scientific method is just that, a method. There were means of understanding the universe before that as well, they just weren't very keen (i.e. earth's a flat disc).

"Moreover, it makes it possible to interact with reality. Our entire interpretation and understanding of reality hinges on constancy -- with every moment that passes, things will abide by a general logic that coincides, so that past conditions will literally resemble historical ones."

You're getting onto firmer ground here. Are you at all familiar with Kant's argument for causality? You're on the edge of it (to the extent where in my last post I had a paranthese bit about Kant but took it out). Take a look at this, and it may help your argument.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Actually, I forgot to take it out- the (see Kantian categories) bit.