DasAmericanAtheist, the problem of induction, and causality

The problem of induction can be solved either with Bayesian probability analysis or by falsificationism, if experience is the paradigm of truth sources. Falsificationism fails because it doesnt account for positive scientific knowledge, and Bayesianism cant give an account for a rational way to readjust our probabilities we assign to certain theories.

I propose that we solve the problem of induction by appealing to a metaphysical law of causality. Given that scientific realism is the most obvious and common-sense position, we must commit ourselves to solving the problem of induction. It seems that some kind of metaphysical law of causality would be the best solution to the problem of induction.

If causality is a necessary law, then quantum mechanics has a cause.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• DasAmericanAtheist
• causality
• Kant
• Hume
• problem
• of
• induction
• quantum
• mechanics

[spectrumVerX]

In science, claims are made as a result of research, not before...at that point they are merely hypotheses. If sodium glows bright orange in a bunsen burner, the scientist will claim "Sodium glows bright orange when (indirectly, if in a flask) heated in an atmosphere of ~1 atmosphere with an air composition similar to common air" - someone will have to observe and report the same under water, at higher altitudes, different air compositions, etc. The lack of differing results is what...

[migkillertwo]

@spectrumVerX the problem is that we dont just start with unbias facts. We start with certain presuppositions about which facts are relevant to observe. Gregor Mendel didn't take into account the brightness of the moon in boston when he was doing his experiments.

[TheTruthgeneral]

The problem of induction can be shown not to really exist as it seems to be tacitly using a event based model of cause and effect instead of a entity based model which must be used

[TheTruthgeneral]

Concerning the example you used with sodium is it supposed to be a matter of the nmber of times we observe blah blah blah or can it simply be affirmed that by a certain definition of the word sodium it follows necessarily that it will do this or that in a certain situation.I mean can simply affirm that it is within its nature to do so,so if you observe what you claim to be sodium doing something else well i can simply say well that is not sodium the problem of induction can be shown not to exist

[TheTruthgeneral]

Induction you define as merely the process of scientists judging a given theory to be valid/invalid.Okay in other words induction is a word representing any type of judgement done by any one on a given assertion about anything that is accessible empirically.Now you said the problem with this is how do we know that some laws of nature never change ?.What is a law of nature ? and can it be shown to be in accordance with objective existence that a law of nature can change ?

[sklanger]

That's your critique of falsificationism? A half-hearted, unconvincing, one-sentence damp squib about "positive knowledge"? Weak.

[spectrumVerX]

@migkillertwo Mendel, at this point, is a non-sequitor. The confusion you have is the same as before, hypotheses != claims. We start hypotheses with presuppositions, based upon previously acquired empiricism, with an expectation of the results of our proposed procedure. The claim, made afterwords, is a collection of conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the experiment

[spectrumVerX]

points scientists to saying that 'sodium always glows orange when heated' - as all conceived and possible conditions and processes have produced the same result. Anyone versed in philosophy will have reservations regarding what they call 'knowledge', but we have to take the "highest operational value" and go with that when moving forward. Considering all this, 'the problem of induction' doesn't really exist. This is completely compatible with bayesian methods, to boot

[otakurocklee]

Nice video.

We all appeal to this law of causality already... the thing is can we prove that this law is true...