Three Minute Philosophy - David Hume

You don't exist.

• Category

  Education

[Julian Frazer]

"....and you're gonna feel like a wanker"

brilliant line :D

[bluedartwing]

My teacher found this on the internet, didn't watch it all the way through, and pretty much froze when he said the word 'wanker'.

[Lewa500]

I think he offered a solution to that problem but I'm not entirely sure about it, you can check it out.

Now, while that's a legitimate difficulty, the answer lies within verification - incidentally also a principle endorsed by Popper. While it is true that an unproven hypothesis is equally valid as a scientific theory when you look at it at face value and deny past evidence and experiments, it is also true that the hypothesis could fall apart the moment a contemporary verification is required.

[Brad Younger]

One thing I never understood about Popper's view is how it could account for the difference in likelihood or plausibility between an untested conjecture and a well tested scientific theory which has survived many years of rigorous attempts at falsification. After all, if one cannot appeal to past evidence or successes to draw inferences about the future (since doing so would be to invoke induction), how can one judge a theory based on how many attempts at falsification it has survived?

[Lewa500]

In other words, Popper required conclusive deduction.

Sure, John might be at that conference, but one cannot be even moderately certain unless they have solid proof. Basically, it's an evolution from assertive deduction to deduction with evidence, if you will.

[Lewa500]

Both, actually. As the senses are subjective for each person, it would not be logical to follow objective facts based on subjective senses, and as it is so, Popper suggested a process of elimination via falsification of a hypothesis. In essence, the modern scientific methodology - peer review, denying the senses where applicable, replacing induction with deduction, etc.

What I might say Popper added to Aristotle's deduction, if that is the case, is that he added the need for conclusive evidence.

[Lewa500]

Sure, that is a good methodology.

[MisterBlueSky1000]

Philosophers seemed to be in agony about induction due to their expectation for an absolute final answer beyond which no doubt nor questioning could be made. And what I suggest (similar in spirit to what you said) is:

"I have seen only green apples. Therefore, if color recognition is important - for say efficient food gathering - then whenever an apple is needed I will act as if all apples are green, ignoring red objects.

Later when I can, I may open my mind a bit and see if I missed something.

[MisterBlueSky1000]

When you say "empirical falsification" - do you mean a process of elimination - or denial of the senses as reliable?

The Aristotle deduction I know of (and I am not a professional philosopher) is what most people use without even realizing:

If A and B are true, then C must follow.

Example: If (A) all employees of a certain company are at a certain conference, and (B) John is an employee in that company, then (C) John is at that conference.

[Lewa500]

What you're suggesting is actually deduction. Induction doesn't work in an open system like the universe and it is bound to create practical difficulty when applied. Assuming that all apples are green, just because you have not encountered red ones, yet, is faulty logic. However, stating that because all of the apples you've encountered are green, therefore some of the apples are green is the intellectually honest position as it includes room for improvement.