Good point. Hume did show that induction cannot be justified on independent logical grounds. But he also acknowledged that there appear to be no better guide to understanding and navigating the world, as a matter of pragmatism.
Professor Pigliucci how is it that David Hume claim the reliability of the laws of nature based on repeated human observation (1:14 in this video) and simultaneous forward the problem of induction? I am a little confused.
The problem of induction is a separate issue, and yes, it is a problem for science, from a foundational perspective. And no, Popper didn't solve it via falsification. However, the issue with miracles is worse, because even on inductive grounds the case for them is awful.
It's obvious that Hume's take on miracles is well thought through but in induction & validation things become complex. Karl Popper said: "'Knowledge' ... is objective; & it is hypothetical or conjectural." This way of looking at the problem made it possible for him to reformulate Hume's problem of induction. Popper used this insight in claiming: "I approached the problem of induction through Hume. Hume, I felt, was perfectly right in pointing out that induction cannot be logically justified"
"if Hume was right, this would spell disaster for inductive reasoning... Those who endorse Hume's argument against miracles are supporting a line of reasoning that would equally undermine science" - Why do supports of Hume ignore this?
This is the Internet, you think "the other side" doesn't have anything out there? Besides, from a ratinal perspective there simply isn't another side.
@MassimoPigliucci With all due respect but philosophers such as Alvin plantinga, peter van inwagen, William Lane Craig, and richard swineburne might disagree with you on that one.
I think the computer generated animation and voices are fun. When I was a kid, I would dial number on my rotary phone just to hear the time and temperature, now that was high tech!
extrooudinary
TheWetdreamer7 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Good point. Hume did show that induction cannot be justified on independent logical grounds. But he also acknowledged that there appear to be no better guide to understanding and navigating the world, as a matter of pragmatism.
MassimoPigliucci 4 months ago
Professor Pigliucci how is it that David Hume claim the reliability of the laws of nature based on repeated human observation (1:14 in this video) and simultaneous forward the problem of induction? I am a little confused.
henjokongo 4 months ago
would you like to pay for them?
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
You really really really need voice actors. Otherwise you're only going to reach a very small sector of youtube.
impowow 8 months ago
Plantinga is a philosopher and theologian, Craig is a philosopher. As I said, I don't take theologians seriously.
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
The problem of induction is a separate issue, and yes, it is a problem for science, from a foundational perspective. And no, Popper didn't solve it via falsification. However, the issue with miracles is worse, because even on inductive grounds the case for them is awful.
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
It's obvious that Hume's take on miracles is well thought through but in induction & validation things become complex. Karl Popper said: "'Knowledge' ... is objective; & it is hypothetical or conjectural." This way of looking at the problem made it possible for him to reformulate Hume's problem of induction. Popper used this insight in claiming: "I approached the problem of induction through Hume. Hume, I felt, was perfectly right in pointing out that induction cannot be logically justified"
2bsirius 8 months ago
"if Hume was right, this would spell disaster for inductive reasoning... Those who endorse Hume's argument against miracles are supporting a line of reasoning that would equally undermine science" - Why do supports of Hume ignore this?
Forkroute 8 months ago
Yes, I'm sure Plantinga and Craig would disagree. But idont consider theologians to actually be philosophers...
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago 2
@MassimoPigliucci Plantinga and Craig are philosophers. How can you call yourself a philosoper and not know that?
LittleSn00py 8 months ago
Good video, but I'd much rather hear the dolcette tones of a certain Massimo Pigliucci than this robot fodder.
dragonfart28 8 months ago 2
@dragonfart28 agreed
Dathinkingman 8 months ago
You might want to consider a video on physics 101 for that...
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
All well and good, but how do magnets work? :P
niriop 8 months ago
This is the Internet, you think "the other side" doesn't have anything out there? Besides, from a ratinal perspective there simply isn't another side.
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
@MassimoPigliucci With all due respect but philosophers such as Alvin plantinga, peter van inwagen, William Lane Craig, and richard swineburne might disagree with you on that one.
manutdfan4321 8 months ago
I don't mind the voices for a 5 minute video, I liked the robots.
B57913 8 months ago
this doesnt seem to be a fair treatment of miracles, only one side is presented here.
manutdfan4321 8 months ago
Great video, Massimo!
sansdeus 8 months ago
I think the computer generated animation and voices are fun. When I was a kid, I would dial number on my rotary phone just to hear the time and temperature, now that was high tech!
tybrady64 8 months ago
I rather have Massimo explain it via webcam. These robot voices are distracting. Takes away from the importance of the topic.
saitohxD 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so what do you believe
Cronos844 8 months ago
are you going to pay for that? didn't think so.
MassimoPigliucci 8 months ago
Get voice actors please.
impowow 8 months ago