Why is reason defined as deductive logic? Seems that animals and humans rely heavily on inductive reasoning. Deductive is something we came up with rather recently, but our ancestors didn't use it to survive, communicate and utilize tools, etc. — Marchesk
the reasoning of science cannot justify them [passions]... — unenlightened
Does 'justify' mean something different to you? — Pseudonym
A claim is justified by evidence of its truth — unenlightened
or valid argument from accepted premises — unenlightened
A bio-evolutionary/neurological explanation of belief in God is a very different thing from a justification of belief in God. — unenlightened
Right, so if neuroscience demonstrated it to be be 'true' that certain passions were, by biological necessity, present in the brain, how would that not be a justification? — Pseudonym
As Dawkins says, genes are not selfish, they don't have selves, they don't have wants.
What? — unenlightened
You are equating justification with a reductive explanation. — SophistiCat
Justification - as you yourself said - is reason to believe. — SophistiCat
Right. So the claim that the future is like the past is justified by evidence, not by a valid argument from accepted premises. It forms one of those first-principles that are not derived from any more general principles.A claim is justified by evidence of its truth or valid argument from accepted premises. — unenlightened
Right. So the claim that the future is like the past is justified by evidence, not by a valid argument from accepted premises. — Agustino
I am Nostradamus, what are you talking about? :-!Yes, and the only people who have evidence of the future are Nostradamus and Jehovah's Witnesses. — unenlightened
What are the chances that the future will be like the past? Well the future has always been like the past in the past, so if the future is anything like the past, chances are it will be like the past. — me
The evidence is my past experience. My past experience has proven, that in certain circumstances (ex. the laws of nature) the future is like the past. So in such particular cases, I seem to be justified in believing this - and by this, I simply mean that it would be irrational to believe the opposite. Do you mean to suggest that it is not irrational to believe the opposite? Sure, the laws of nature could change - it is logically possible. But there's no reason to believe it.No knowledge and no immediate experience means no evidence. So one is reduced to the inductive argument which is circular:- — unenlightened
Sure, the laws of nature could change - it is logically possible. But there's no reason to believe it. — Agustino
I'm not sure if time had a beginning. No, I can't show that they haven't changed "since the beginning of time", but I can show, for example, that Newton's law of gravity has remained the same ever since the last 200 years at the very least.Can you show even one so-called Law that hasn't changed since the beginning of time? — Rich
Newton's law of gravity — Agustino
I'm not interested to discuss the metaphysics of it, my interest is that in practical terms, the laws have remained the same. — Agustino
No, I don't, but if I want to build a house, I will still rely on Newton's equations, GTR or not. That Newton's equations have been superceded by GTR is of no relevance to their continued application on Earth. That may be of relevance only metaphysically.Well, the Law may stay the same but had shown to no longer be anything except an approximation and superceded by GTR. So apparently Laws are any mathematical equations that have practical application. Fine. It's open season on Laws even if outmoded.
I suppose you have a Law that predicts what time I get up every morning? — Rich
My past experience has proven, that in certain circumstances (ex. the laws of nature) the future is like the past. — Agustino
Yes, but something is fishy with Hume's argument. When we're dealing with logic, we have to establish what things we know with the greatest certainty and proceed from there. So if you have an argument whose conclusion contradicts a statement that you know to be true, then before accepting the truth of the argument (and rejecting the truth of the statement), you must compare the certainty you have in the premises of the argument, with the certainty you have in the statement that the conclusion contradicts. If the statement is more certain than the argument, then you ought to abandon the argument and look for the mistake you have made.You're muddling the tenses. "My past experience has proven, that in certain circumstances (ex. the laws of nature) the future has been like the past." And this says exactly nothing about what will be. — unenlightened
I'm saying that this is one of our foundational premises — Agustino
Well, what can I say, I am an extravagant man >:OBut to claim, after having been dragged kicking and screaming over several pages to it, that "we would expect" the result is - extravagant. — unenlightened
Do you think that this is what Kant says or is this unrelated?one might say that it is part of what we mean by 'the future', that it will follow in an orderly fashion from the present and past, and if it doesn't, then we would have to call it a new world, or an afterlife, or something. — unenlightened
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.