How do we overcome the problem of induction?
It's superstitious nonsense. Science doesn't have to worry about it before getting to work.
-A.J. Ayer
>>339718
>>339729
Well honestly he did present one way to overcome it.
>>339685
Is there are any falsifiable evidence it exists?
>empiricism
>in any way valid
>implying
You don't overcome it. Empricial observations of phenomena can only have verisimilitude to unobservable noumenal objects.
All descriptions of empiricial observations are only the observations of phenomena resulting from noumena. The statement "I saw the apple" is false on a technical level, because you're actually seeing photons reflected off of the apple.
The same can be said of anything we believe are patterns or correlations. It's all just phenomena, not anything real or truthful.
However, because there is verisimilitude, it's good enough to be useful and practical. But on a logical level, it's bullshit and we never actually interact with anything, just intermediary forces and resulting sub-phenomena.
>>339685
By being Against Method (Feyerabend)
>>339747
Is there any falsifiable evidence the consciousness of other people exist? No, because nobody can read minds.
We have to assume others exist.
>>339754
But we only discovered photons via empiricism.
>>339685
Science does not use induction, and induction is in fact a myth. Instead, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism.The main role of observations and experiments in science is in attempts to criticize and refute existing theories.
The problem of induction as usually conceived is asking the wrong question: it is asking how to justify theories given they cannot be justified by induction. Justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification begs for an authoritarian answer. Instead what should be done is to look to find and correct errors. You should regard theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true. Seeking for theories with a high probability of being true is a false goal that is in conflict with the search for knowledge. Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are lots of ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated).
>>339786
And how did we do that? By observing several different intermediaries interacting with them.
Nobody has ever actually directly observed a proton. Nobody has ever directly observed anything.
Do you really think that color exists? Do you think that the images in your head are 100% accurate observations of the world?
It might even be that "photon-ness" doesn't actually exist, it's just another verisimilitude for something else entirely. I mean, explain to me how exactly something can be a wave and a particle at the same time? It's obviously true, but it's not something that can be readily comprehended.
I don't believe that nothing exists or that we don't know anything at all, just that we never know anything accurately or directly. Again, it's verisimilitude. It's "good enough" for human needs.
Read Kant
EZPZ
>>339795
>induction is in fact a myth
That's like saying guessing is a myth.
>>339806
How are you so sure that noumenon is metaphysically possible independent of an observer?
>>339778
That depends on how you define consciousness, you can clearly falsifiably study whether someone is conscious or unconscious.
It's only if you only if you start making "consciousness" some piece of magic rather than the workings of a biological machine that this is even a problem.
>>339849
The idea that a rock disappears when nobody is looking at it is silly.
Also, and this is purely speculative, what if existence and observation are the same thing? What if observation is a phenomena that results when an object interacts with itself and the phenomena of other objects?
>>339877
It's quite simple.
You have a dream, let's say of an apple. We can look at your brain having that dream PET scan and talk about what areas are active and what neurons are firing and whatever. You can tell scientists what you dreamed and they can go write papers about the "apple dreaming" part of the brain or whatever.
But nobody will ever experience your dream of an apple besides you. I cannot plug myself into the dream and experience it for myself as if I were you, nor can we replicate your experience of being you dreaming of an apple if we put an identical image of the apple on a screen.
Our experiences are never shared. Ever.
>>339754
>implying experiencing the photons bouncing off an apple isn't real in it's own way
what do you define as truth? actually being the object in question? that's a ridiculous criterion, at least if we're speaking of making observations about the world
>>339914
>But nobody will ever experience your dream of an apple besides you. I cannot plug myself into the dream and experience it for myself as if I were you, nor can we replicate your experience of being you dreaming of an apple if we put an identical image of the apple on a screen.
>Our experiences are never shared. Ever.
That simply doesn't matter though. It's an unfalsifiable claim.
>>339935
>unfalsifiable
You're using that word incorrectly. It is completely falsifiable. Show me someone or something that reads minds. Go on, I'll wait.
An actually unfalsifiable claim would be like saying there's an invisible teacup floating in space.
Not saying "there are no mind readers". Next you'll tell me "there are no bigfoots" is unfalsifiable. Fucking idiot.
>>339934
what do you define as truth?
Being-ness. A statement would be true if it describes being-ness without falsehood. And most statements are flawed on some level, so only have a verisimilitude to truth.
The problem isn't with the universe, it's with us. We need things like photons, nerves, neurons, languages, iconography, definitions, and so on and so forth. They're all barriers to truth, but we can get close enough for us to put a man on the moon and stuff. But in a philosophical sense, we'll always be frustrated.
Is it really so hard for some people to comprehend that the scientific method is just a "true until proven false" affair? I assume the apple my eyes tell me is in front of me is in front of me because I don't have any other data to contradict that. If I reach for it and it isn't there, then i doubt the apple.
>>339914
The idea that something exists when nobody has seen it is silly.
>>339718
In all seriousness, why is this guy a big deal? Language, Truth, and Logic is literally the fedora bible.
>>339969
>what do you define as truth?
Being-ness. A statement would be true if it describes being-ness without falsehood. And most statements are flawed on some level, so only have a verisimilitude to truth.
Of course, but we make due with what we have. The issue is less that Hume and co. are wrong but that we're sick of hearing about how intrinsically flawed human perception is.
>>339969
>You're using that word incorrectly. It is completely falsifiable. Show me someone or something that reads minds.
It is clearly you that misunderstands what falsifiable is. Asking me to speculate about whether there is something that could 'read minds' has nothing to do with falsifiability.
You could mold it into a more specific hypothesis about a specific claim that we could test, such as can pyschologists or neuroscientists predict a specific behaviour in lab conditions. Clearly these subjects are still in their infancy but in some cases they can do so, although they still have a long way to go.
Of course "there are no bigfoots" is unfalsifiable claim. You could define what you mean by a Bigfoot and try and conduct a specific study in a specific location to see if there are any Bigfoots there.
>>339685
What does induction even mean?
>>339685
Depends on the type of circuit, but I'd say that a semiconductor is probably a solid bet.
>implying Popper didn't overcome it
>>339685
Wait like 5 years for Kant to completely and utterly rip Hume's asshole apart and solve Metaphysics.
>>340331
It means use google.
>>340880
We know that the mind has a rational structure because the world has a rational structure. Now that we know that the mind has a rational structure we are safe in the knowledge that we will be able to detect the world's rational structure.
>>339778
Why?
>>339795
>Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are lots of ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated).
But there's no logical connection between them being falsified and them being wrong.
Because I could spend my entire life being fat and thinking about induction without ever being able to solve it.
>>339685
in taming your spirit, this factory of abstractions.
learn jhanas
>>339754
this really pisses me off that he's using the word verismilitude and noumenal when his point could be reduced to two sentences using laymen speak, for christ's fucking sake
>>339754
>The same can be said of anything we believe are patterns or correlations. It's all just phenomena, not anything real or truthful.
but gravity will continue to exist and is predictable. i could say there is a pattern of objects falling to the earth, and behind this pattern is a "reason"
>>341147
>implying philosophy isn't about being smug and coming off as totally incomprehensible while actually saying stuff that has substance
dawkins pls
read hegel
>>341147
I think noumenal is perfectly acceptable. I mean, he's using it correctly where I don't feel another word could do it better.
>>340367
This, I'm surprised no one else have said Popper.
>>341175
> here is a pattern of objects falling to the earth,
> behind this pattern is a "reason"
This is an induction, and there is no logical step from the first part to the second. Just because something repeated n times this is no logical reason to expect it to do the same n+1 time. Like, repeating an unsound logical reasoning million time don't make it sound.
>>341147
