Debunking Fallacious Defenses of Induction @d4shawn

Induction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FohzPbslluM

Hume's notion of cause and effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw2-JtCDjyE

Category:

Education

Tags:

• cause
• effect
• determinism
• hume
• induction
• d4shawn
• elimisteve
• rational
• rationality

[thadroberts77]

Personally I don't consider the matter completely closed, but I thought you might be interested in addressing these also in this discussion. :-)

[thadroberts77]

Modern Philosophers of Science have noted some deductive and mathematical ways of justifying some of the logic behind induction. For example, for the purposes of deductively proving aspects of the practice of inference they now have Hans Reichenbach's theory, the law of large numbers, de Finetti's theorem, and the Neyman-Pearson lemma. Furthermore, the entire Bayesian movement is, in a large part, a fairly accepted attempt to provide a rational foundation for inductive reasoning.

[bucksofbourbon]

my bad- you did state Hume's prob. in a different light. good job.



[bucksofbourbon]

i know you were responding to a prior question, but who cares, fill us in because your doing a great job!!!

[bucksofbourbon]

years later we see the 'isolation' problem come up in Quine's paper " Two dogmas of empiricism." Quien Duhem Thesis" for further reading. in a nut shell - the billiard ball example - we can never test a hypothesis in isolation. Each and every time we test something, we assume, that all the other factors in play, meaning in the billiard ex. the cloth, the mass of the balls, the lint on the table, humidity, pocket size, friction, etc. are 100% identical to the original.

[bucksofbourbon]

hence, the problem of induction. It will always correspond to, or relate to past experiences. We cannot empirically experience CAUSALITY!!! Modern science therefore predicates future events on past experience, and ultimately renders it incompetent.

[bucksofbourbon]

LOGICAL connection, what's the connection we can appeal to that's found in experience, but doesn't relate to past experience?" "is there one?" Even Hume at this point would say... "NO. i can't find one." Therefore, even though i struck the cue ball into the 8 ball 100 times, and obviously the 8 ball moved once it was contacted by the cue ball every time, there is no necessary, undeviating, evidence i can appeal to except past experience< I cannot empirically "experience" CAUSALITY, it just is.

[bucksofbourbon]

@elimisteve; you have to start every vid with the premises of what your talking about. I'm a 7 yr. philosophy major at UCI, i understand what your trying to convey, but i think you need to go over the original problem that Hume found in his own philosophical system. constant conjunction- entails necessary connection. i get it. i get the fallacy, but put it out there, people won't understand your approach. BTW- Hume wouln't say that- he's say, " regardless of what you saw...what's the

[wtw88]

Fucked if I know. What was I thinking?

[otakurocklee]

Nice video. There will never be a solution to this problem, unless we have some direct knowledge of the causal mechanisms of the universe... if they even exist.