Hume's idea is that there is no strict 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 skepticism, or actually a sensible idea?
>>28540225
I've thought that before.
It all comes down to solipsism really, there's no evidence anything exists besides your consciousness. The whole universe could be just a simulation with arbitrary rules. There no evidence that the "laws" of nature of have always been, or that they can't just randomly change one day.
In practical terms, its just a reminded to keep an open mind, anything is possible.
its true but for reasons stupid people wont understand.
The best way to understand it though is that, There is no ability of man to measure and understand all the forces that are at work in the world, and while we can grasp the general idea of something, true understanding of why will never come. This isnt to say that the laws of nature do not exist, just that they will never be the same as the way we see the "laws of nature"
>>28540225
a sensible idea is one that you can use to organize your experience in a functional way.
if i have a recipe for bread and every time I use it it results in delicious bread, it is not functional to tell myself that I am just as likely to come out with rocks the next time I use the recipe. I will use it again when I want bread again because I know it results in bread.
In pure logic, it is fallacious to say that I know I'll get bread every time. It is also fallacious to say that every step I take will not land me in a secret bear trap or that when I turn on the shower it won't shoot out zyklon B. You can't KNOW these things for SURE, but you live your life according to what is sensibly apparent as predictable rules.
therefore we must assume that cause and affect are as they appear to be saving for logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc and correlation = causation etc
>>28540225
you copied my thread from /his/ dude, but i am somewhat proud that you seemingly liked my wording
>>28540225
It's true. It's basically correlation vs causation.
It won't make me lose my sleep at night though.
>>28540225
I never took philosophy, but it's the type of stuff I think about all the time. I read slowly so I can't process enough to get into the field. I will stick to getting computers to follow a sequence of instructions and fantasize about making a breakthrough in AI.
>>28540324
>>28540341
>>28540398
>religious idiots are in already to twist OP's idea into a hysteric 'human thinking is limited and flawed'
>>28540483
(With a side of appeal to ignorance, of course, too.)
Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" if you want to know what this looks like in practice.
>>28540398
There's basically two issues with this sort of practicality.
The first is that if you don't really know why something works out, you don't know how long it'll continue working out. To continue your baking analogy, if you don't know anything about baking except your recipe, then if you go up or down a thousand feet in elevation your recipe will probably fail and you won't see it coming or have any idea how to adapt.
The second is that being "practical" about knowledge just means engaging in reckless generalization (i.e., "common sense"). The most obvious examples of this are the obviously-complex-systems sciences, where people have gotten it into their head that play-acting physics will work, or else they waste incredible amounts of energy running self-referential simulations. It's again the problem that if you don't understand the epistemology of your discipline, you'll constantly fuck up but not even have the tools to recognize your fuck-ups.
>>28540616
>"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
The 'science has been wrong before' meme book?
>>28540636
I'm sorry, I must've missed the "intellectual safe space" sign. It's a book about how scientists having been wrong played out, about why scientists act the way they do and how that made people believe in phlogiston theory far longer than made sense.
>>28540483
it is flawed and limited, it would be arrogant to think we have the understanding of the universe or "see things for how they really are"
We are creatures susceptible and subjective. and while we can find belief and solace in the facts and meaning we make, it doesn't mean that our knowledge is correct or real. The scientific method is based around this, that knowledge is always tentative and based around the discovery and repeatably of something, Attempting to isolate variables and observe them, is the closest thing we have to facts but it doesnt point to true understanding.
it's true. you cannot observe cause and effect, only a series of events, and in a strict sense cause and effect are not real; they're as real as cause and effect as portrayed in a video game. it seems like there's a force that's pulling object down, but in reality the developer just programmed everything to go down once you release it.
>>28540734
All right, sorry. 'I'm totally not riding the anti-scientific bandwagon for cash, I'm just describing a couple of mishaps science went through in the past, that's all, trust me' meme book. Better?
>>28540752
What a heap of non-sequiturs. 'Let me arbitrarily pull out of my arse a dozen or two of lofty declarations of human fallibility and haplessness of measly human minds in the face of the great mystery that is Go-- --the universe! I meant "the universe", honest!'.
You're an idiot for thinking anyone would buy this.
>>28540398
The real question is different: why DO you deduct that the next time you follow the receipt you'll get a cake. you could say "it has happened a million times, so it is of high probability". the question remains why the fact that something has happened a thousand times before means it's more likely to happen again
>>28540858
Meanwhile, this: >>28540785 is interesting. I dig the 'programming everything at once' analogy. Unlike the 'human mind is limited' cliche, it's creative.
>>28540858
Good luck finishing your STEM undergrad. At least there the professors won't force you to confront any challenging ideas, and you can keep yourself tightly swaddled in the comfort-blanket of formal systems.
>>28540858
>>28540981
(Also, it's still interesting how you erect an arbitrary notion of 'true understanding', which you don't define at all, but which you baselessly posit exists, so to be able to pit scientific inquiry against it. 'Science does not provide TRUE knowledge, because TRUE knowledge is, uh, uhh, TRUE, and science does not bestow TRUE knowledge, because I say so.' Religious people have been doing this since forever, cf. various 'true realities', 'true awarenesses', etc. Manipulation such as that is here to say.)
>>28540891
Look pal, if you don't know something you should boldly come out and say it. then you can add "but practically.."
you cannot observe cause and effect, that's a fact as far as I can see. if you have any counter arguments go ahead
>>28540858
na nigger this shit is just simple biology, Knowledge is passed down by people, its not some universal truth, its something that is constantly changing, Humans are just as capable as perceiving the world as a dog or as a butterfly, While both lack (questionably) consciousnesses they are also able to see the world in a completely different yet no more inaccurate way, dogs having a better sense of smell and butterflies being able to perceive light spectrum beyond ours.
You are nothing special, The world just is bigger than you. This doesnt mean to not seek knowledge and understanding, just to do it knowing that you are always wrong.
>>28541064
(Also, it again makes me wonder what my brain has always lacked if I was born without an innate mastery of such manipulation...)
>>28541131
>you cannot observe cause and effect
This is true, and I admitted as much in my first post ITT, >>28540456. Then you came to the thread and blew it into all sorts of TRUTH DOESN'T REAL which does not follow.
>>28541171
>This doesnt mean to not seek knowledge and understanding, just to do it knowing that you are always wrong.
'I don't mean to connote as hard as possible that science is bad, just let me connote that science is bad.'
Just crawl back to your psychology departments.
>>28541181
oh, I wasn't that person. can you still justify the fact that we draw conclusions about the future from the fact that things happened (frequently) in the past?
>>28541218
you are though, even your math problems, You can never account for all the variables,
>>28541254
>can you still justify the fact that we draw conclusions about the future from the fact that things happened (frequently) in the past?
Of course. What I don't do is construct the... I'm not even sure there is a term for what you're doing here, it's not a strawman... the mythological figure of 'TRUE certainty about the figure' I described in >>28541064, whose existence and whose purported inattainability by the scientific method to then gleefully celebrate.
>>28541323
>about the figure
*about the future
>>28541323
More of the same here: >>28541298. Holy shit. Someone was mad enough to even extend this to fucking math.
'Math is limited and flawed and blahblahblah because TRUE MATH would "account for all variables"!'
This is as mind-bogglingly retarded as calling a fucking set 'flawed' because it's not infinite. Jesus.
>>28541323
>Of course.
well, where's the justification?
>>28541406
In other words, people will apparently grasp at ANYTHING, no matter how implausible, so to just be able to put the term 'flawed' somewhere, somehow, near the subject they resent (either because they failed it in high school, or because they're religious populists or pseudoscience peddlers).
>>28540225
you are misunderstanding hume.
His idea is that what is has no relation with what should be.
In other words, there is no strict logical relationship between an effect and future moral applications of said effect. Nothing said about the past.
>>28541431
Past observations indicate a pattern. Ceteris paribus (that is, given no other patterns that might interfere), a pattern is expected to continue into the future.
>inb4 more of the 'that's not a TRUE justification' tedium
Very probably much so perhaps considering all things thouroughly indepth.
>Hume's idea is that there is no strict logical relationship between an effect and its cause
This might be true for some branches of science, but for conceptual thinking like mathematics this is very retarded. Take a triangle for example. It's interior angles will always add up to 180 degrees. This is absolute, there's no variety of triangle that could possibly bypass this rule.
>>28541496
> a pattern is expected to continue into the future.
why? you might say that's an axiom , but if that's the case you can't justify it
>>28541559
>This is absolute, there's no variety of triangle that could possibly bypass this rule.
it's not obsolete, you're justification of that fact would be "I have seen a lot of triangles and all added up to 180, and moreover I cannot conceive of a triangle that would not follow the rule", and that's exactly hume's point
>>28540225
I don't think that ideas real focus is around natural law we all observe rather 3 of the other things, basically about logic.
What the thinker considers to be logical.
How to explain things that do not appear to match up to what he considers natural reality being logical.
How illogical things happen when it's not logical to a larger audience of spectators/thinkers.
Personally I disagree with his assertion because if I experience something it is likely another person would experience it the same way, when the illogical things that don't fit statistically occur it doesn't invalidate the rational occurrences it means there is another variable.
If you were playing a dice game with two 6 sided dice and decided to do the math on how statistically likely certain numbers will pop up more than others, it doesn't mean it's not more likely to happen again when the number with the lowest statistical chance is rolled. It is entirely possible for it to happen on a streak and make his assumption seem like it has more merit but it's more likely the person rolling the impossible is probably cheating and should be stabbed in the face with a sharp object many times if they're cheating you.
>>28541562
Tip: slapping a 'why?' before a statement does not, in fact, make you a questioning person.
There is no 'why' to a rational principle. You can either adopt it or continue stewing in your bog of 'prove it tho'.
>>28541621
so you cannot prove it, or deduct it from logic, which is exactly hume's point. what were you arguing against exactly?
I agree with everyone's very deep thoughts and am myself a deep selfcongratulatory thinker.
>>28541562
>>28541621
(Namely, to continue positing an arbitrary 'that's not a TRUE proof yet' -- you're never going to acknowledge a rational device because you need to be able to CLAIM that it is flawed/inferior/... . You don't need mental proficiency, you need *people* to *hear* *you* speak disparagingly of science.)
>>28541687
and at last we've reached the genetic fallacy. poor argument m8
>>28541593
>>28541593
> you're justification of that fact would be I have seen a lot of triangles and all added up to 180...
Not that guy, but the sum of the triangle angles is proved to be always 180. This conclusion was not derived from "observation" of many triangles.
>>28541653
What? In >>28541254, you didn't ask me to prove the idea that causation (as opposed to mere correlation) can be proven, which was OP's/presumably that Hume man's point (which I explicitly said I agreed with), but the idea that one can learn from past observations ('draw[ing] conclusions about the future from the fact that things happened'). For that, causation isn't needed, and past observed correlations suffice. I don't need to know whether thing x1 caused or will continue to cause co-occurring thing x2 to conclude that the co-occurrence will continue.
I apologize for assuming that you kept tabs on what you're arguing.
>>28541593
Ok, well then what about the statement "it cannot be known whether or not every triangle's interior angles add up to 180 degrees". The justification is pure logic. No following patterns. This would also disprove hume's skepticism.
>>28541729
It's not an argument, it's just a related, usually unspoken observation.
>>28541782
Hume first argues that causation cannot be observed, and then further argues that one cannot give a justification to a conclusion about the future from past events.
I merely asked you if you can justify drawing conclusion about the future from the fact that something happened in the past. I've yet to see such a justification
>>28541797
>This would also disprove hume's skepticism.
well, I'll have to give up on that, I don't know enough about triangles. I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusion is reached because a "1 degree" is defined in such a way that is ultimately that same as saying "a triangle has 180 degrees"
>>28540225
The more I think about it the more it makes me think this guy is a quack. No relation between an effect and its cause. That's like saying adding a match to a pint of gasoline had no effect, or adding it to a barrel didn't cause a larger effect.
>>28541896
>further argues that one cannot give a justification to a conclusion about the future from past events
Nonsense. Just the fact that interfering, extra factors might occur in the future that might eventually break a correlative pattern doesn't mean that concluding about said future is 'impossible'. We've already been through the personality traits and personal aims which lead people to grasp to call as many intellectual functions as possible 'impossible' though.
>>28541998
Don't blame him for abuse of his ideas by pseudoscientists.
>>28542100
>We've already been through the personality traits and personal aims which lead people to grasp to call as many intellectual functions as possible 'impossible' though.
irrelevant. see again genetic fallacy
>Nonsense. Just the fact that interfering, extra factors might occur in the future that might eventually break a correlative pattern doesn't mean that concluding about said future is 'impossible'
you still failed to give a justification as to why past events are sufficient to conclude about future events.
the form is, for example:
1. premise: I've seen the pen fall a thousand times in the past when I dropped it
2. ??????
3. conclusion: If I drop the pen one more time it will fall
fill in the ????????
>>28542251
I'm not going to repeat myself. Thecorrelation between my posts and your failure to understand themhas proven it futile.
>>28542278
you've talked about nonsense, gave out fallacies, and avoided answering the question. I gave you a form, go ahead, fill in the blank and prove Hume wrong
>>28542323
>you've talked about nonsense, gave out fallacies, and avoided answering the question.
Have you associated an extra key on your keyboard with pasting this preset generic accusation into the reply form? If not, you should.
>I gave you a form, go ahead, fill in the blank and prove Hume wrong
'??????' = 'there is no reason to assume that an observed correlation would cease'
Now go on and spout your puerile 'why tho' again, forgetting that I had replied to that as well.
>>28540225
>>28540432
>>28540537
>tripfag copies your thread
>gets more replies than you
>>28542381
Also, >inb4 you misunderstand that situation as appeal to ignorance
Appeal to ignorance refers to concluding that a correlation existed/exists/will exist while it *hasn't* been observed, not to when it *has been*.
>>28542381
>'there is no reason to assume that an observed correlation would cease'
that's not a good argument.
'there is no reason to assume that an observed correlation would cease' = 'if a pen has fallen a thousand time before there is no reason to assume it will not fall again and therefore it will fall again'. you're begging the question. there's a reason to assume it might not fall again, plainly because it is obviously a possibility
>>28540225
The premise of this question is about rationalizing the relationship between EFFECT and CAUSE.
>>28541782
This guy understands
>>28541896
>>28541937
>>28542323
These guys quibbled near understanding Hume but got lost.
Hume was right. The ordered world understood by man is awash in totally independent events. Life, as we know it with all its accidents, coincident, and luck (on top of just random shit) is most of whats in the world.
Science is but a sad candle and the flickering of reason cannot prove that it is anymore real than the shadows cast.
>>28541998
The irony is that in real life if you throw a lit match into a container of gasoline the match will simply be extinguished, it does not make a big explosion like in a Michael Bay movie.
>>28540225
How's pining over a chick who has never and will never have any interest in you, bud?
What am I even reading anymore.
Who the fuck is Hume and why should I care about his points?
How can you say we can only truly understand a series of events once we know every little thing that happened in them, when the same faulty observers who interpret the series of events as cause and effect are the same observers that study its details?
>>28540225
>Solipsism
Can be very dangerous for Satanists. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won't. Instead, Satanists must strive to apply the dictum of "Do unto others as they do unto you." It's work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.
(Jist btw, I'm gay)
