I'm lost on why the problem is such a big deal and whether they mean science doesn't tell us anything about the world? — Darkneos
Mostly the Proof and Evidence section. I'm lost on why the problem is such a big deal and whether they mean science doesn't tell us anything about the world? — Darkneos
In other words, the problem is that we need to assume a "universal" constancy of a kind to be able to do science or live in the world at all, yet in pure empirical terms, no such universal can be known to exist. Because, by definition, empiricism only deals with particular objects and not universals. — Dharmi
I say it is, but pure empiricism cannot justify the claim that laws of nature are truly real. That's the problem of induction. — Dharmi
[Much] of what contemporary epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science count as induction infers neither from observation nor from particulars and does not lead to general laws or principles. [Induction] was understood to be what we now know as enumerative induction or universal inference; inference from particular instances:
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.