The Induction Fallacy is itself inherently flawed. If you do an experiment a million times and always get the same result, you are guaranteed to get the same result on the million and first try as well. You can't assume that because it's happened before it will always happen? Actually, yes, you can. That's why science works. Science isn't a bunch of apples. The only part of science this doesn't apply to is Quantum Physics, which is essentially the universe making a giant troll face.
Science: "David Hume ist forced to conclude that even though it doesn't make any sense, science still seems to work. :D " - Saying a lot about our strange world.
I'm just taking my first philosophy class, so relax: If nothing truly does exist, as postulated by Hume, what is the point of anything? I'm not getting to the meaning of life, because as someone who believes in the existential tenants, I don't think there is one. However, there is a point to learning, to being moral, and ethical. How does Hume account for this?
If knowledge can only be perceived through the senses then does that mean time does not exist? Or perhaps logic doesn't exist, because it cannot be witnessed or examined empirically. Not to mention as the video said this theory of knowledge is built with an inherent logical fallacy
even though i hate it hume is right! since we have no way of experiencing the future we had no logical reason to assume the future will resemble the past.
@Jax132 We have a predisposition for conflict therefore war is unavoidable, humans arent as intricate as we desire to be. We're still eluded over physiological question we are unable to comprehend but have a perverse pretentious notion that we are permitted to know everything. Its quit evident that we only use 12% of our brain, it shows.
@kinglbkiv Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects. Game, Set, and Match.
@sperdoch WTF? That is completely irrelevant from my argument, and was a horrible rebuttal. My point was i remember reading that people only use 9% but Einstein used 12% furthermore people are to stupid to research anything on there own hence why society is a piece of shit. Checkmate, bitch.
@sperdoch You arrogant coward! I win every debate im in whether its in sports, religion, politics, ect bc unlike most of these fools im objective and dont let my personal feeling cloud my logic. I dont think even you know what your even arguing, if so what is your point?
@kinglbkiv humans actually use %100 of their brains. If by conflict you mean specifically war, then humans likely have no predisposition. humans are an evolutionary marvel; our level of consciousness is unbelievable.
@Mystro1989 I just read a little and i was wrong, turns out its a myth but never the less humans are still fuckin stupid. We are capable of a lot but we squander it due to our arrogance. I mainly blame the creation of religion for the slow decline in interest in "truth" but its safe to assume religion is the root of evil.
Pfft! Bollocks! The self exists in its soul, strip yourself of your properties you have a mind, if that mind is floating around you're still conscious, therefore I exist, so in a way Descartes was right, in a way a nihilist is right, since a belief has negative consequences, and now you believe in nothing anymore, but Hume is denying science, this would be logical if you can state that science proves a structure, and that structure proves what it is, that's why you should take this position.
Well, what Hume argues is that he cannot find an impression of self. Think about it. What do you really know about you? You can say you have hands and feet, thoughts and passions, because you have perceived them. However, what perception can you have of a self? Well, he thought he could not have that perception. He thought he could only bundle up these different impressions and ideas to create a sense of self. So for his system there's no actual self.
Erm, was this video meant to be an accurate representation of Hume's ideas? I realise its not meant to be serious, but I am concerned that way too many people will take this seriously :P
but the laws of science are defined by the observer effect of quantum science.... in short WE CAUSE THE EXISTANCE OF SCIENCE ITSELF(and if there is no-one there to force the universe to obey the laws.... the laws of physics do not exist).
@doombybbr according to hume, thats the illusion that your brain gives you. And consequentially, according to hume, your brain is just a feature of your non-existent self. Its like frikin Postmodernism. As soon as you try and define or counter it, its wrong.
For great philosophy try Robert M. Price, Daniel Dennett, John W. Loftus, Victor J Stenger, Dan Barker, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, Jason Long, Ken Humphreys, Joseph Wheless, Richard Dawkins, C. Dennis Mckinsey
@templewhore That can't be the John W. Loftus whose Debunking Christianity blog I read. He seems to be a very modest, honest person. JWL seems to be one of the best educated scholars of the Bible . JWL makes it interesting to study the Bible. Still everybody has got their favourite authors. Try Edward Babinsky or Hector Avalos for more top rational thought.
@zytigon Yes, one and the same. He's very opinionated and if you don't agree with him he cuts you off. I've seen some real nasty exchanges on DC. To each...
@templewhore I haven't had that experience with John Loftus. He seems very knowledgeable on the history of religion and higher criticism of the Bible. I would say he was mostly an oasis of clear thinking in comparison to the ministers I have heard in my life. Anyway doesn't everyone have moments when they get annoyed and behave a bit roughly? I know that I have. That doesn't mean that I can't be polite too.
ya, it effen contradicts itself - thus that statement in itself - "we can't know anything for sure" would apply to itself therefore we could know everything for sure at the same time, therefore logically nothing exists
@hippo11222 Obviously you're not familiar with skepticism. He's not making it a claim, he's simply rejecting all claims, which isn't a claim in itself.
@hippo11222 But but but does absolute skepticism's self-refutation somehow mean that we CAN know something for sure? What could it be? And if we can't find it, maybe absolute skepticism is true, but we can't know it for sure. Maybe. O_o
@hippo11222 Perhpaps, but as far as I can tell, Hume doesn't say it this way. If you are talking about the induction problem, he merely shows, that there is no reason we should believe something has to always happen the same way given the same circumstances.
@hippo11222 If Hume is wrong then that means that there are things that we DO know for sure. Name me one.
Hume's statement makes perfect sense because what he said is not a "yes or no" statement. Its a probability that is so likely that you might as well just believe it to be true (even though you don't know if its true)
Hume's statement is a perfect example of the extremely bad habit philosophers have of making points that may, on some level, be technically true, but in practice mean exactly fuck all. People who actually spend their time creating things of value, the scientists and engineers, often look down on philosophy preciously because of this kind of meaningless nonsense that apparently only exists so philosophy students can stand around being smug while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
@noodlezombie Oh i know that. hippo11222 wanted to be all technical so i gave him an all technical response.
However, its not always bad to think about these things. In my case, this helped me realize the kind of dumbass that i was for believing in an invisible sky fairy.
What he says is that all arguments about the real world are based on induction, that induction can't be proven, and that we must simply accept it without reason as something that works. By his own admission is argument is not infallible, just as certain as humans can practically be about things.
@hippo11222 He didn't say that we can't know anything for certain. Relations of ideas "are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe" (Sec. IV). Rather, Hume says we can't claim matters of fact to be certain; these judgments are contingent on nature being uniform over time, itself being based on an assumption: in the past, past futures resembled past pasts.
If every single condition is exactly the same, the outcome *will* be the same - but we can't account for every single variable, hence the seeming randomness - but we can still make correlations.
Sextus Empiricus said that even the expression "nothing is knowable" is dogmatic and thus cannot be relied upon, so we ought to suspend judgement as to whether there is such a thing as knowledge, and continue to inquire. Dogmatic conventions are no more one thing than another, no more hot than cold, no more wet than dry, no more rough than smooth, no more light than dark, no more moving than Being still :)
hume isn't saying that we do not exist for certain, he is saying that we cannot prove whether we exist or not either way and therefore existence in itself becomes meaningless and we can say nothing more about it. however this does not work practically when we leave the philosophy classroom and so ultimately our belief that we do exist is enough.
Hume is a hypocrite saying that we cannot be certain about anything, and yet he says for certain that we don't exist. That is a reactive illusion to say with certainty.
I can agree with Humes theories on some terms, although I think it's a bit exaggerated to assume nothing exists, only its properties/features. I'd say, you don't know wether the object itself exists, the only fact you know is true, that you can perceive properties.
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price,'The reason driven life', John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Valerie Tarico , wisdomcommons
"It has no mass, no volume, no acceleration, no matter." Those are properties, as are these, "it's invisible, intangible, can not be smelt heard or tasted."
You have described an object there. It has features which you have described. Namely that it allows energy to condensate into mater. That it facilitates the transfer of matter. That's it's imperceptible as well. You have described properties inherent in this material, and thus have made it a bundle.
To the common senses it's invisible, intangible, can not be smelt heard or tasted.
To common Physics it has no mass, no volume, no acceleration, no matter.
Yet it exists. And it's simply there to allow other things to exist and propagate through space. Things which have no matter of their own such as Radiation for instance are able to propagate through it at a fixed Maximum Transmission Unit known as the speed of light.
@neferiusnexus It allows energy to condensate into matter and vice-versa, thus making e=mc² possible.
And completely disregarding Hume's theory, for it to be an object, it must be composed of something.
Thus, Ether is composed of Dimensions. Not in the SciFi sense of parallel dimensions, but in the sense of building-blocks of Existance, all stacked on top of each other.
@neferiusnexus From singularity(point), to mono-dimensional(line), two-dimensional(plane), three-dimensional(space), four-dimensional(space-time continuum) and it goes on until it all (presumably) collapses back into singularity.
The problem of induction is that all induction relies on assuming the uniformity of nature. The only way humans could attempt prove the uniformity of nature is by inductively pointing out that all known instances in the past were uniform. Any attempt to use this fact in an inductive/deductive argument necessarily begs the question.
Falsifiable induction is still problematic, because it in no way uncircularly proves that the future will be like the past.
@LaughingMan0X Wow, you must be really smart to say that I made up what I just wrote and then proceed to explain Popper's view. 'Resolved' and 'solution' might have be too strong...does 'reconcile' work better for you? Popper's point on falsification is that science is strictly in the business of disproving, rather than positively proving, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a means for gaining knowledge. Popper certainly did not prove that the future will be like the past
@shutuprafa "Popper certainly did not prove that the future will be like the past" That means he didn't "reconcile" the problem of induction. What Popper actually said was that in order to partake in science, induction was not a necessary act, I recall Popper called it a myth. Though, Popper makes essentially inductive claims about theories which survive criticism in the past; he says they will be a reliable predictor in the future. He was big on the concept of corroboration.
@shutuprafa Also, Popper never justified the circular reasoning in the problem of induction in the sciences, nor did he find a way around it. He basically said ignored the justification aspect and opted to focus on what a makes a theory more correct than not.
But objects must have properties in order that we can identify them as objects; if they did not, we could not assemble any sense-data whatsoever in order to detect their existence or effect on us.
@darklord220 Firstly, an object must have properties or else it is not object to be identified so it can have an effect on the subject; an object does not "arise" out of its properties; Hume had it arse backwards.
Secondly, you wimpy little bitch, either maintain an argument for more than two exchanges, or I'll block and ignore you indefinitely. You wussed out of a PM exchange, wussed out of a debate on idealism, and I've got a strong feeling you'll wuss out of this. Put up or fuck off!
@niriop 1) You didn't answer my question, you simply asserted the same thing you did before. I ask again, how in the fuck can you imagine an object without imaging its properties first? Epistemically, how can you? Defining something as such does not account for how we can gain knowledge of it.
2) Secondly, you little fucking cunt, either be coherent or don't, I don't really care haha. I fucking asked you if you wanted to have a skype exchange and I HAVE YET TO GET A RESPONSE YOU COWARD.
Hmmm.... Very interesting. One question though. If the green apple doesn't really exist, and it's only projecting itself here, to the now, where my senses 'collide' with it, the who or what is projecting it, where from, what for, how, and most importantly how did they get the idea of projecting an apple as it is?
Well, sure, the apple has the properties of the apple. Why then say anything? I just figure, if you're going to say, "that's not an apple, that's a round, red object with x, x and x" you've already changed the object as it is known to the observer. Most people will know and interact with the apple as "apple". You can't really break something down without changing what it is.
The apple doesn't really exist, only its properties. Language really is interesting isn't it? I could write a whole book on that one sentence. I...I, don't talk to me right now XD
are you sure you didn't get hume mixed up with Berkeley? The majority of this video is berkeley's ideas, get to the heart of Hume's philosophy which is the problem of induction and causality and how miracles are not possible.
@Moiez101 There are a lot of similar themes in Hume. The absolute cornerstone of Hume's philosophy is the Copy Principle. This is actually quite accurate.
This one is quite decent for 3 minutes, but I don't like how you didn't take Kant's responce and simply said "KANT IS BEST KNOWN FOR ETHICS"... Kant turned philosophy around with his responce to Hume's fork...
@Krshwunk: You can't conceive of just red? In your mind, just the idea and colour of red, not attached to, say, a fire truck or apple? I don't know about you, but I can... same with properties like large and small and shiny and irrepressibly drab and awful (though irrepressibly drab and awful most often comes immediately before thinking of someone like Berkeley...). Maybe it's just me, but I can think of properties without an attached existent item.
Thank you so much! I really enjoyed this :P it is relaxing me about my philosophy exam, coming up in approximately half an hour. It makes me laugh :) and I loved the 'scientists don't seem too bothered'. Thank you! It is highly appreciated :)! You have made my day :D
Hume wasn't an really an atheist per se, more an agnostic than anything else. But that's being pedantic of course.
Shiyuru999 7 hours ago
Never stop making these!
dreamingimalive 3 days ago
Richard Whateley :)
giorgiv18 4 days ago
The Induction Fallacy is itself inherently flawed. If you do an experiment a million times and always get the same result, you are guaranteed to get the same result on the million and first try as well. You can't assume that because it's happened before it will always happen? Actually, yes, you can. That's why science works. Science isn't a bunch of apples. The only part of science this doesn't apply to is Quantum Physics, which is essentially the universe making a giant troll face.
noodlezombie 5 days ago
Science: "David Hume ist forced to conclude that even though it doesn't make any sense, science still seems to work. :D " - Saying a lot about our strange world.
jj56723 5 days ago
Hume era PICA !
Ele simplesmente era um ESTUDIOSO das BAIANICES, BAIANADAS & BAIANIDADES
Ou não ... ספקטר
SPECTRE1961 5 days ago
I'm just taking my first philosophy class, so relax: If nothing truly does exist, as postulated by Hume, what is the point of anything? I'm not getting to the meaning of life, because as someone who believes in the existential tenants, I don't think there is one. However, there is a point to learning, to being moral, and ethical. How does Hume account for this?
tremblaytwo 6 days ago
Hume stated under presure, that god was physical and lived on another planet.
takebackkean 1 week ago
Sounds we can't hear. That is all.
scalaReversion 1 week ago
And then wisky was made...
TheMysticCore 1 week ago
The same idea of nothing existing independently from everything else is found in the madyamika school of Buddhist philosophy.
Also there is another philosopher called George Berkeley who said the same thing.
And the best part is that no matter how much you disagree, you can't prove them wrong : )
otinanaire 2 weeks ago
the clever wank
Eli2Darko 2 weeks ago
someones going to hand you a red apple and your going to feel like a complete wanker.
wannalivelife23 3 weeks ago 23
If knowledge can only be perceived through the senses then does that mean time does not exist? Or perhaps logic doesn't exist, because it cannot be witnessed or examined empirically. Not to mention as the video said this theory of knowledge is built with an inherent logical fallacy
JPBuysjr 3 weeks ago
But don't the properties of an object make an object what it is?
euanfranklin1 3 weeks ago
your drawings are awesuuuum
Itsverycoldinmoscow 3 weeks ago
Christ the people in these comments need to stop acting like they know anything beyond AS level philosophy, it's embarrassing.
UltraChronicMonstah 3 weeks ago
makes no sense, it works lets go with it
ever hear of quantum mechanics?
MirageScience 4 weeks ago
Apriori reasoning for the win!!!!! :3
hippo11222 1 month ago
David hume is great MOFO!!!! I still give batshit to people by talking about induction.
andx17 1 month ago
Wait, why are granny smith apples revolting?
djslavyslav 1 month ago
it was the brits right ?
goatphilososphy 1 month ago
what is he saying 1:20-1:26 "No.. did Hume believe in WHAT??" lol I can't understand the accent :$
harvsterrr 1 month ago
@harvsterrr sense data.. he pronounces data as "daahter"
r9nger 1 month ago
"even though it doesn't make any sense it still seems to work"...because it has always seemed to work in the past. :)
nymphrenic 1 month ago 7
You have a talent dude. So serious. Lol. Learn and laugh!
Bhatch2007 1 month ago
is the end symphony "Furtwangler Beethoven Symphony no. 9 Choral (Bayreuth 1951) 423 "?
imranbug81 1 month ago
@imranbug81
If by all that, you mean Ode to Joy from Beetoven's 9th Symphony, than yes
cowpacino 1 month ago
even though i hate it hume is right! since we have no way of experiencing the future we had no logical reason to assume the future will resemble the past.
Jax132 2 months ago
@Jax132 We have a predisposition for conflict therefore war is unavoidable, humans arent as intricate as we desire to be. We're still eluded over physiological question we are unable to comprehend but have a perverse pretentious notion that we are permitted to know everything. Its quit evident that we only use 12% of our brain, it shows.
kinglbkiv 1 month ago
@kinglbkiv Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects. Game, Set, and Match.
sperdoch 3 weeks ago
@sperdoch WTF? That is completely irrelevant from my argument, and was a horrible rebuttal. My point was i remember reading that people only use 9% but Einstein used 12% furthermore people are to stupid to research anything on there own hence why society is a piece of shit. Checkmate, bitch.
kinglbkiv 3 weeks ago
@kinglbkiv Nice response. I'm still waiting for an actual argument. Clearly you lost. Game over.
sperdoch 3 weeks ago
@sperdoch You arrogant coward! I win every debate im in whether its in sports, religion, politics, ect bc unlike most of these fools im objective and dont let my personal feeling cloud my logic. I dont think even you know what your even arguing, if so what is your point?
kinglbkiv 3 weeks ago
@kinglbkiv humans actually use %100 of their brains. If by conflict you mean specifically war, then humans likely have no predisposition. humans are an evolutionary marvel; our level of consciousness is unbelievable.
Mystro1989 3 weeks ago
@Mystro1989 I just read a little and i was wrong, turns out its a myth but never the less humans are still fuckin stupid. We are capable of a lot but we squander it due to our arrogance. I mainly blame the creation of religion for the slow decline in interest in "truth" but its safe to assume religion is the root of evil.
kinglbkiv 3 weeks ago
We exist because we can doubt our own existence.
BlackSabotage100 2 months ago
HUME'S PROPOSITION: derp..(I'm not being fesiscious, derp truly is, all that matters..momentary experience)
kylebossify 2 months ago
youre going to feel like a wanker...lol !
iLoveCrumbles 2 months ago
Holy Crap that was funny!!!!
princessgraves 2 months ago in playlist Three Minute Philosophy
3:00 i actually laughed out loud.
Mystro1989 2 months ago
all right who's the dude at 1:07? I feel like I know who he is but I can't place his name...
5MaggieC 2 months ago
@5MaggieC Richard Dawkins
digid25 2 months ago
Pfft! Bollocks! The self exists in its soul, strip yourself of your properties you have a mind, if that mind is floating around you're still conscious, therefore I exist, so in a way Descartes was right, in a way a nihilist is right, since a belief has negative consequences, and now you believe in nothing anymore, but Hume is denying science, this would be logical if you can state that science proves a structure, and that structure proves what it is, that's why you should take this position.
Hoobifta 2 months ago
Well, what Hume argues is that he cannot find an impression of self. Think about it. What do you really know about you? You can say you have hands and feet, thoughts and passions, because you have perceived them. However, what perception can you have of a self? Well, he thought he could not have that perception. He thought he could only bundle up these different impressions and ideas to create a sense of self. So for his system there's no actual self.
krlsurquixa 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WTF stabbing people WHAAAATTTTTT! Not funny
MsOneiroi77 2 months ago
مجھ کو بھی تمنا ہے کہ 'اقبال' کو ديکھوں
کی اس کی جدائی ميں بہت اشک فشانی
اقبال بھی 'اقبال' سے آگاہ نہيں ہے
کچھ اس ميں تمسخر نہيں ، واللہ نہيں ہے
imranahmad131 2 months ago
@imranahmad131 .. It is the same philosophy as put by Hume but a little more deeper
imranahmad131 2 months ago
Good job. Thanks.
myrootsinthejungle 2 months ago
thanks very funny and very informative.
cronogeo 2 months ago
I always have to pause-laugh and then play again!
133839297 2 months ago
All these people are mind-fuckers
NickyChick28 2 months ago
i shat myself when i heard - "you'll fell like a wanker" brilliant
yashil17 2 months ago
I love how your figures always have wire hands.
Funaru 2 months ago
Erm, was this video meant to be an accurate representation of Hume's ideas? I realise its not meant to be serious, but I am concerned that way too many people will take this seriously :P
huruey 2 months ago
what about the 100th monkey?
SergeHumphrey 2 months ago
I'm sorry...was something saying something to me?
Pi10sco 2 months ago
doombybbr is quite the troll.
ryanyomomma 3 months ago
Comment removed
Weirdvideos146 3 months ago
Just to let you know I keep returning to this video frequently -_-
Pr0pagandaFilms 3 months ago
This was pretty helpful for me.. I have to to a project about this guy, and it summarizes a few things...XD
blueroses93 3 months ago
MAKE MORE FUCKING VIDEOS!!!NOW!!!
Pr0pagandaFilms 3 months ago 2
but the laws of science are defined by the observer effect of quantum science.... in short WE CAUSE THE EXISTANCE OF SCIENCE ITSELF(and if there is no-one there to force the universe to obey the laws.... the laws of physics do not exist).
doombybbr 3 months ago
if you don't exist.... how can you even THINK you exist..... the answer is you CANNOT....so you do...
doombybbr 3 months ago
@doombybbr according to hume, thats the illusion that your brain gives you. And consequentially, according to hume, your brain is just a feature of your non-existent self. Its like frikin Postmodernism. As soon as you try and define or counter it, its wrong.
Pro3tag 3 months ago
@Pro3tag but you do exist as an assortment of properties... that much is certain
doombybbr 2 months ago
@doombybbr the properties exist... but you as a whole of those properties dont.
Pro3tag 2 months ago
@doombybbr
maybe
cowpacino 1 month ago
For great philosophy try Robert M. Price, Daniel Dennett, John W. Loftus, Victor J Stenger, Dan Barker, Keith Parsons, Ken Pulliam, Jason Long, Ken Humphreys, Joseph Wheless, Richard Dawkins, C. Dennis Mckinsey
zytigon 3 months ago
@zytigon John Loftus is an egotistical wanker
templewhore 3 months ago
@templewhore That can't be the John W. Loftus whose Debunking Christianity blog I read. He seems to be a very modest, honest person. JWL seems to be one of the best educated scholars of the Bible . JWL makes it interesting to study the Bible. Still everybody has got their favourite authors. Try Edward Babinsky or Hector Avalos for more top rational thought.
zytigon 3 months ago
@zytigon Yes, one and the same. He's very opinionated and if you don't agree with him he cuts you off. I've seen some real nasty exchanges on DC. To each...
templewhore 3 months ago
@templewhore I haven't had that experience with John Loftus. He seems very knowledgeable on the history of religion and higher criticism of the Bible. I would say he was mostly an oasis of clear thinking in comparison to the ministers I have heard in my life. Anyway doesn't everyone have moments when they get annoyed and behave a bit roughly? I know that I have. That doesn't mean that I can't be polite too.
zytigon 3 months ago
I.LOVE.THIS!
BTVSCharmed 3 months ago
"Someone will hand you a red apple and you'll feel like a wanker."
MsAndyb1992 3 months ago 124
AHH LOOF HYOO PEHH-NNEHHH
TedMan55 3 months ago
Hume's proposition: We can't know anything for sure. BULLSHIT HUME! That's self refuting.
hippo11222 3 months ago 26
@hippo11222 wow you just mind fucked me
Nswayze22 2 months ago
@hippo11222 I believe he was aware of this. In other words... he implied that philosophy is quite a load of BS.
kimsin981 2 months ago
@hippo11222 t
ya, it effen contradicts itself - thus that statement in itself - "we can't know anything for sure" would apply to itself therefore we could know everything for sure at the same time, therefore logically nothing exists
yashil17 2 months ago
@hippo11222 Aren't you kind of burning a straw man there?
Nervousification 2 months ago
@hippo11222 Obviously you're not familiar with skepticism. He's not making it a claim, he's simply rejecting all claims, which isn't a claim in itself.
oihhow 2 months ago
@hippo11222 But but but does absolute skepticism's self-refutation somehow mean that we CAN know something for sure? What could it be? And if we can't find it, maybe absolute skepticism is true, but we can't know it for sure. Maybe. O_o
Megaritz 2 months ago
@hippo11222 Perhpaps, but as far as I can tell, Hume doesn't say it this way. If you are talking about the induction problem, he merely shows, that there is no reason we should believe something has to always happen the same way given the same circumstances.
elendiel 2 months ago
@hippo11222 Science is the best hypothetical guess. That is what he means.
HeavenAura 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hippo11222 Or maybe we dont know that we dont know anything for sure ;)
D4N009 2 months ago
@hippo11222 If Hume is wrong then that means that there are things that we DO know for sure. Name me one.
Hume's statement makes perfect sense because what he said is not a "yes or no" statement. Its a probability that is so likely that you might as well just believe it to be true (even though you don't know if its true)
cdog9991 1 month ago 14
@cdog9991 Tim Tebow is God, we know that for certain.
soprisrb 3 weeks ago
@soprisrb
I live near Denver, and if I hear the words "Tim" and "Tebow" one more time...
THEEVANTHETOON 3 weeks ago
@cdog9991
Hume's statement is a perfect example of the extremely bad habit philosophers have of making points that may, on some level, be technically true, but in practice mean exactly fuck all. People who actually spend their time creating things of value, the scientists and engineers, often look down on philosophy preciously because of this kind of meaningless nonsense that apparently only exists so philosophy students can stand around being smug while accomplishing absolutely nothing.
noodlezombie 5 days ago
@noodlezombie Oh i know that. hippo11222 wanted to be all technical so i gave him an all technical response.
However, its not always bad to think about these things. In my case, this helped me realize the kind of dumbass that i was for believing in an invisible sky fairy.
cdog9991 4 days ago
@hippo11222 Have you actually read Hume?
What he says is that all arguments about the real world are based on induction, that induction can't be proven, and that we must simply accept it without reason as something that works. By his own admission is argument is not infallible, just as certain as humans can practically be about things.
gorgolyt 1 month ago
@hippo11222 He didn't say that we can't know anything for certain. Relations of ideas "are discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe" (Sec. IV). Rather, Hume says we can't claim matters of fact to be certain; these judgments are contingent on nature being uniform over time, itself being based on an assumption: in the past, past futures resembled past pasts.
Icien1 1 week ago
One thing I would like to know is were Granny Smiths invented in Tasmania and if so are all Tasmanian Apples Green?
MrJamesdevereblest 3 months ago
wait, so is hume's bundle theory agreeing with Kant about how the mind and how it projects things...??
tenseman08 3 months ago
If every single condition is exactly the same, the outcome *will* be the same - but we can't account for every single variable, hence the seeming randomness - but we can still make correlations.
ArcasDevlin 3 months ago
Sextus Empiricus said that even the expression "nothing is knowable" is dogmatic and thus cannot be relied upon, so we ought to suspend judgement as to whether there is such a thing as knowledge, and continue to inquire. Dogmatic conventions are no more one thing than another, no more hot than cold, no more wet than dry, no more rough than smooth, no more light than dark, no more moving than Being still :)
AlbertaSun 3 months ago
GRANNY SMITH APPLES ARE NOT REVOLTING! THEY ARE TART AND DELICIOUS!
love the video mate
Lumberjack33x 3 months ago
genius
webba0000000069 4 months ago
hume isn't saying that we do not exist for certain, he is saying that we cannot prove whether we exist or not either way and therefore existence in itself becomes meaningless and we can say nothing more about it. however this does not work practically when we leave the philosophy classroom and so ultimately our belief that we do exist is enough.
YoursSinsIntoMe 4 months ago
This is for people who prefer entertainment over knowledge. Only sex should be reduced to three minutes.
TheBrettHughes 4 months ago
One day someone's gonna give you a red apple and you're gonna ask them if their taking a piss.
greateralexander 4 months ago
Thanks for posting, nice video! ;)
Magar6 4 months ago
Hume is a hypocrite saying that we cannot be certain about anything, and yet he says for certain that we don't exist. That is a reactive illusion to say with certainty.
MulattoZygote 4 months ago
'Hay guyz, kurtosis FTL!'.
Done.
joelcamefalling 4 months ago
Can we get 3 Minutes on Nassim Taleb?
dfobare 4 months ago
AHAHAHA XD This was great :D
Ukoctopus 4 months ago
we watch this in A level philosophy, gotta love it :)
JungleDoctors 4 months ago
i would have killed Hume!!! if he ever existed o.O
DubNRuggers 4 months ago
i would have killed Hume!!! if he ever existed o.O
DubNRuggers 4 months ago
I can agree with Humes theories on some terms, although I think it's a bit exaggerated to assume nothing exists, only its properties/features. I'd say, you don't know wether the object itself exists, the only fact you know is true, that you can perceive properties.
EmmaJulieAislinn 4 months ago 3
Good stuff Gary
fantomcreep 4 months ago
rofl, god i love these
anvilheaded 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price,'The reason driven life', John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Valerie Tarico , wisdomcommons
zytigon 4 months ago
I wish my classes were taught like this...
haneycr 4 months ago
i was thinking before he brought up the apple whether "being" could be a sense??? gonna be a long night here too:/
666SPEED44DEMON666 5 months ago in playlist three minutes philosophy
Hume butt fucked my reasoning. I respect him.
thatkamikid 5 months ago
The properties are the beings itself.
segano1 5 months ago
Very interesting, although you made Scotland too small on the map.
segano1 5 months ago
lmao at his face at 3:24
samm1809 5 months ago
"It has no mass, no volume, no acceleration, no matter." Those are properties, as are these, "it's invisible, intangible, can not be smelt heard or tasted."
You have described an object there. It has features which you have described. Namely that it allows energy to condensate into mater. That it facilitates the transfer of matter. That's it's imperceptible as well. You have described properties inherent in this material, and thus have made it a bundle.
aTenderMoron 5 months ago 2
Imagine an object without properties?
Simple! Ether.
To the common senses it's invisible, intangible, can not be smelt heard or tasted.
To common Physics it has no mass, no volume, no acceleration, no matter.
Yet it exists. And it's simply there to allow other things to exist and propagate through space. Things which have no matter of their own such as Radiation for instance are able to propagate through it at a fixed Maximum Transmission Unit known as the speed of light.
neferiusnexus 5 months ago
@neferiusnexus It allows energy to condensate into matter and vice-versa, thus making e=mc² possible.
And completely disregarding Hume's theory, for it to be an object, it must be composed of something.
Thus, Ether is composed of Dimensions. Not in the SciFi sense of parallel dimensions, but in the sense of building-blocks of Existance, all stacked on top of each other.
neferiusnexus 5 months ago
@neferiusnexus From singularity(point), to mono-dimensional(line), two-dimensional(plane), three-dimensional(space), four-dimensional(space-time continuum) and it goes on until it all (presumably) collapses back into singularity.
neferiusnexus 5 months ago
Ought to have included the Is Ought Problem.
Theftz22 5 months ago
omg this is even more disturbing than Descartes !
turgore 6 months ago 2
Am I the only one that laughs my ass off when I see jokes about Dawkins.
yuirrr 6 months ago 3
Cool video!
philnov8 6 months ago
How could there possibly be ANY dislikes on this masterpiece?
oldstyleliberal 6 months ago
The solution to the problem Hume had with science was resolved by Popper...falsification
shutuprafa 6 months ago
@shutuprafa Popper didn't solve the problem of induction (not mentioned in this video). Additionally bundle theory is falsifiable.
oldstyleliberal 6 months ago
Oh wait this video does mention the induction fallacy
oldstyleliberal 6 months ago
@shutuprafa
You entirely made that up.
The problem of induction is that all induction relies on assuming the uniformity of nature. The only way humans could attempt prove the uniformity of nature is by inductively pointing out that all known instances in the past were uniform. Any attempt to use this fact in an inductive/deductive argument necessarily begs the question.
Falsifiable induction is still problematic, because it in no way uncircularly proves that the future will be like the past.
LaughingMan0X 6 months ago
@LaughingMan0X Wow, you must be really smart to say that I made up what I just wrote and then proceed to explain Popper's view. 'Resolved' and 'solution' might have be too strong...does 'reconcile' work better for you? Popper's point on falsification is that science is strictly in the business of disproving, rather than positively proving, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that as a means for gaining knowledge. Popper certainly did not prove that the future will be like the past
shutuprafa 6 months ago
@shutuprafa "Popper certainly did not prove that the future will be like the past" That means he didn't "reconcile" the problem of induction. What Popper actually said was that in order to partake in science, induction was not a necessary act, I recall Popper called it a myth. Though, Popper makes essentially inductive claims about theories which survive criticism in the past; he says they will be a reliable predictor in the future. He was big on the concept of corroboration.
darklord220 6 months ago
@shutuprafa Also, Popper never justified the circular reasoning in the problem of induction in the sciences, nor did he find a way around it. He basically said ignored the justification aspect and opted to focus on what a makes a theory more correct than not.
darklord220 6 months ago
@darklord220 omit said*
darklord220 6 months ago
But objects must have properties in order that we can identify them as objects; if they did not, we could not assemble any sense-data whatsoever in order to detect their existence or effect on us.
niriop 6 months ago in playlist Philosophy
@niriop Aristotelian assumption fail. If you take away all the properties of an object, where in the hell does the object go?
darklord220 6 months ago
@darklord220 Firstly, an object must have properties or else it is not object to be identified so it can have an effect on the subject; an object does not "arise" out of its properties; Hume had it arse backwards.
Secondly, you wimpy little bitch, either maintain an argument for more than two exchanges, or I'll block and ignore you indefinitely. You wussed out of a PM exchange, wussed out of a debate on idealism, and I've got a strong feeling you'll wuss out of this. Put up or fuck off!
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop 1) You didn't answer my question, you simply asserted the same thing you did before. I ask again, how in the fuck can you imagine an object without imaging its properties first? Epistemically, how can you? Defining something as such does not account for how we can gain knowledge of it.
2) Secondly, you little fucking cunt, either be coherent or don't, I don't really care haha. I fucking asked you if you wanted to have a skype exchange and I HAVE YET TO GET A RESPONSE YOU COWARD.
darklord220 6 months ago
@darklord220 I'm moving this bullshit to your channel page; I don't want it taking up valuable debate space for more worthy discussion
niriop 6 months ago
@niriop *an object to be identified
niriop 5 months ago
David Hume says: David Hume doesn't exist.
Thats pretty funny to me.
kroese1870 6 months ago
@Omnicron777 Lyre?
MrSieish 6 months ago
Hmmm.... Very interesting. One question though. If the green apple doesn't really exist, and it's only projecting itself here, to the now, where my senses 'collide' with it, the who or what is projecting it, where from, what for, how, and most importantly how did they get the idea of projecting an apple as it is?
rencipher 6 months ago
@Omnicron777
Well, sure, the apple has the properties of the apple. Why then say anything? I just figure, if you're going to say, "that's not an apple, that's a round, red object with x, x and x" you've already changed the object as it is known to the observer. Most people will know and interact with the apple as "apple". You can't really break something down without changing what it is.
FeelingFreshSon 6 months ago
Hume's an arsehole. 'Nuff said.
SuperSamBarlow 6 months ago in playlist Philosphy in three minutes
@SuperSamBarlow
hume is most definitely not an arsehole; the man was a secular saint
FeelingFreshSon 6 months ago
There is no Spoon!!!!!!
Leaving999 6 months ago
Great video! Thanks.
ponybcurtis 6 months ago
Mind blown...
Ben19905141 6 months ago
The apple doesn't really exist, only its properties. Language really is interesting isn't it? I could write a whole book on that one sentence. I...I, don't talk to me right now XD
FeelingFreshSon 6 months ago
man... you're good
ADAMOLOGY 7 months ago
Amazing. Thank you.
goodbyezachry 7 months ago
How dare you reduce my country's rich history like that
I'll fucking stab ye ya cunt.... owait....
lukeisareilly 7 months ago 63
i love ur vids! nice job!
SrKonardo 7 months ago
Scotland is known for it's achievement in STABBING PEOPLE LMAO
chuckbear 7 months ago
are you sure you didn't get hume mixed up with Berkeley? The majority of this video is berkeley's ideas, get to the heart of Hume's philosophy which is the problem of induction and causality and how miracles are not possible.
Moiez101 7 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@Moiez101 Nobody says that Asia needs more diversity
Nobody says that Africa needs more diversity
Asia and Africa are already 100% diverse!
Anti-racists only tell white children in white countries that they need more diversity
Canada…America….Britain….Swede n…Latvia will only be 100% diverse
When there are NO WHITE CHILDREN LEFT!
Diversity is a code-word for genocide!
Anti-racism is a code-word for anti-white!
WhiteHussar83 3 months ago
@Moiez101 There are a lot of similar themes in Hume. The absolute cornerstone of Hume's philosophy is the Copy Principle. This is actually quite accurate.
phill6kg 3 months ago
@phill6kg
fair enough. but even then, his metaphysics actually even more important. are you talking about impressions and ideas?
Moiez101 3 months ago
lol darta
JamesTilsley1 8 months ago
I have a philosophy exam tomorrow. I think I'll write your red apple-wanker example if don't know what to write else ;p
TheRevolutionExodus 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
you are a god
potatohead93 8 months ago
One day someone is going to hand you a red apple and your going to feel like a wanker!!
mani1989ify 8 months ago
You know these videos are helping me pass my Morals and Philosophy exam, thank you for providing easy revision
lilithlillium2 8 months ago
this video is so awesome. thanks a lot man.
jgTHRASH 8 months ago
"One day someone's going to hand you a red apple, and you're going to feel like a wanker" - well that's one way of explaining the scientific process!
cellotapetor 8 months ago 3
This one is quite decent for 3 minutes, but I don't like how you didn't take Kant's responce and simply said "KANT IS BEST KNOWN FOR ETHICS"... Kant turned philosophy around with his responce to Hume's fork...
Ptrrrrrrrr 8 months ago
@Krshwunk: You can't conceive of just red? In your mind, just the idea and colour of red, not attached to, say, a fire truck or apple? I don't know about you, but I can... same with properties like large and small and shiny and irrepressibly drab and awful (though irrepressibly drab and awful most often comes immediately before thinking of someone like Berkeley...). Maybe it's just me, but I can think of properties without an attached existent item.
tzamozdra 8 months ago
Thank you so much! I really enjoyed this :P it is relaxing me about my philosophy exam, coming up in approximately half an hour. It makes me laugh :) and I loved the 'scientists don't seem too bothered'. Thank you! It is highly appreciated :)! You have made my day :D
muchdipstick 8 months ago
I think this one got under my skin.....jesus christ.
ChezNight 8 months ago
ATHEISM /dawkins party/
BandofPants 8 months ago
totally helped me understand! Merci!
lilangeljojo439 8 months ago
I wanna see Marx! :)
yoogregcon 8 months ago
David Hume doesn't exist so neither does his philosophy...
ScalerWave 8 months ago