humes idea is that there is no stric logical relationship between an effect and its cause and that therefore the size of experimental data about an alleged law of nature, even if extraordinary large, cannot justify to prove the law of nature as a matter of logic
so here is my question, is this just ridiculously exaggerated scepticism, or acutally a sensible idea ?
>>1130097
I mean, it's objectively true. Just because the sun rose today doesn't mean it will tomorrow, lad.
Yes.
I hate watching /his/ talking about philosophy. I can barely listen to actual philosophers do it, but watching you mongoloids trying to squeeze out an idea is just painful
>>1130097
two things senpai:
1. Hume himself even said that in daily life, a more practical stance is necessary.
2. It is important tho, to remember that this means that sience doesn't give 'realer' truths than, say, religion.
If you're dissatisfied with this, read Thomas Reid. At first, he may seem like a ebin direct realist, but he's actually pretty good
>>1130097
Not only is it an acutely sensible idea, but modern science is based on it.
>>1130455
Oh yeah, induction has nothing at all to do with science.
>>1130495
You're right, science is based on induction and is totally useless for that reason.
>>1130495
>Modern science is based on Hume's objection of induction as a method of gaining knowledge
wew lad
>>1130506
You clearly haven't read Hume or his sceptical argument.
Although it does not logically hold, it is the framework in which we must work, we simply cannot call it 'correct' or 'logical'. That is all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human_Understanding#5._Sceptical_solution_of_these_doubts_.28in_two_parts.29
>>1130526
Thus science is not logical. Take THAT, athiests.
>>1130506
It actually is. Hume doesn't say induction is worthless (which would be absurd), only that it is provisional. And science does not claim to find "truth," only predictive models which can always be falsified by new data. Black swans and whatnot. Which is to say nothing of quantum mechanics, which has long since moved beyond naive models of causal necessity.
>>1130506
>science is based on induction but any problems following from induction have nothing to do with science
typical stemshitters
>>1130097
>induction is sensible
lol
>>1130546
ok, I didn't formulate that right. I just wanted to refute what I read as a claim that modern science is based on hume. Thought of course, Hume was important, Pöpper etc were far more important. I just wanted to nuance that statement
there's no real debat here
>>1130573
>Pöpper etc were far more important.
lol...
Everything Popper ever said was already said by Hume. Popper is only important as one of the first main detractors from logical positivism, that's it - his ideas themselves are incredibly naive.
