I still do not understand this. "We can by inductive reasoning" just is "the future will resemble the past". It's re-stating, not explaining.We cannot justify it by deductive reasoning, but we can by inductive reasoning — Janus
That says that the future resembles the past, because the future resembles the past...?To put it another way, it is rational in a practical sense to assume that the future will resemble the past, because to our knowledge it always has. — Janus
The “normative” aspect here does not consist in a choice among alternatives, but in adherence to what follows from the model itself. — Banno
Perhaps we all can reach some agreement that Bayesian calculus of one sort or another is a rational response to Hume's problem? — Banno
So you would use model theory to explain induction? An interesting idea. What do you have in mind? There'd need to be a move from the preservation of truth to a preference between model, I presume?If conforming to a model solves the problem, then simply infer a model on the basis of the constant conjunction of the empirical evidence. — Relativist
Bayes doesn’t eliminate the guesswork, it formalises it. We still need to choose priors, and those priors depend on the very same customs, habits, and shared practices that Hume, Wittgenstein, and Davidson were talking about. — Banno
The “hierarchy of priors” you describe isn’t an algorithmic miracle — it’s the social, linguistic, and biological history of our talk about causes. — Banno
Rationality isn’t something we add on top of experience, but what emerges from doing what we do - talking, testing, correcting, and learning together. In that sense, Bayesianism is one more way of describing Hume’s “custom and habit,” not a transcendence of it. — Banno
But there's a difference in our methodological dispositions that may be irreconcilable. I have an allergy to explanations of everything. I think complete explanations are completely wrong. So I'll leave you to your mythologising, and muddle along. — Banno
But they don't, really- unless you embrace a "relativist" theory of truth.In model theory, a model is a structure that makes a formal system’s sentences true — Banno
I still do not understand this. "We can by inductive reasoning" just is "the future will resemble the past". It's re-stating, not explaining. — Banno
To put it another way, it is rational in a practical sense to assume that the future will resemble the past, because to our knowledge it always has.
— Janus
That says that the future resembles the past, because the future resembles the past...?
Valid, I suppose, but I find it unsatisfactory. — Banno
To repeat, I wouldn't put it that way but instead "the future will most likely resemble the past, because the future has, as far as we know, always resembled the past". — Janus
I agree. However, we could draw inferences about the nature of reality by examining the past, and apply that analysis (that model of reality) to making predictions. This is, of course, the nature of physics.It's not true by definition that the future will, or even likely will, resemble the past because it always has — Janus
Isn't "warranted" just another way of saying "best"?
— @Banno
No. Being warranted means to be rationally justified.
A subjective "best" inference may, or may not, be warranted. — Relativist
We seem to be circling. Being warranted means to be rationally justified, and something is rationally justified if it is warranted. The best explanations are the ones which are rationally justified, and those are the ones that are warranted, and they are the ones we accept. A subjective best inference may not be warranted, but then it would not be the best inference, and so not justified, and not the best. — Banno
A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. In order to move from the ground established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda", to the claim in 1, "I am a British citizen", the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 and 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen" (3). — Wikipedia - Stephen Toulmin
Well, that just reinforces my opinion that there is no set way to distinguish between them. So your synonymy is not wrong. I'm usually very sceptical about claims of synonymy. There's usually a difference to be found. In this case, perhaps, too many differences for comfort.Some epistemologists use "warrant" to refer to a justification sufficient for knowledge. The conditions that make it so are open to debate. Nevertheless, I was just treating warrant as synonymous with justification. — Relativist
Model theory omits a link to ontology. It defines what truth is semantically, but does not relate it to anything in the world. — Relativist
But they can be distinguished, at least for philosophical purposes — Ludwig V
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.