Though isn't it clear that we need some first-principles, which cannot be derived via argumentation, but must be derived rather from experience? — Agustino
Do you think that this is what Kant says or is this unrelated? — Agustino
Ok, let me switch gears then. What the future will be cannot be derived from experience - but can a rational way to behave (and we're always behaving for the future) be derived from experience?Fuck, do you want to go another round or two[? That the future will be like or unlike the past, that it will be something or nothing, cannot be derived from experience. — unenlightened
Something has to give when faced with the evidence of quantum contextuality as a causal thing. — apokrisis
That's why I said the above. But whether it's 200, 300 or 400 - same thing really, I mean Trump used to say that people were doing business with sticks and stones hundreds of millions of years ago - so why you gettin' on my case for just 100-200 years?! >:OMaybe I should've said 300-400 years though, I suppose we have enough measurements from around Newton's time. — Agustino
No, I wasn't wrong. We still use Newton's equations, and not Einstein's when we build homes. It works.1) Newton codified gravity 332 years ago
2) He asserted that the "law" was universal and maintained by the action of God
3) He was wrong on many issues as we now know due to Einstein.
4) Whatever Newton OR Einstein say nature remains unchanged, but the LAWS which are human constructs DO in fact change.
So to get back to the thread point, you were wrong. — charleton
You have to rely on the assumption that the future will be like the past in order for past evidence to be relevant to the future. Which is assuming the conclusion. I don't object to you doing it, I just object to your claim that is is reasoned. — unenlightened
But if we are talking about a modern scientific view of reasoning, then introducing the third thing of abduction, or an axiomatic leap of the imagination, makes a big difference. It says knowledge works quite differently from how the traditional conflation of deductive logic and rationality might want to represent it. — apokrisis
My past experience has proven, that in certain circumstances (ex. the laws of nature) the future is like the past.
— Agustino
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.
You have to rely on the assumption that the future will be like the past in order for past evidence to be relevant to the future. Which is assuming the conclusion. I don't object to you doing it, I just object to your claim that is is reasoned. — unenlightened
I have yet to see the relevance of introducing the third type of reasoning that is abductive (or retroductive) reasoning. — Magnus Anderson
But the future is not like the past.
Yesterday I had a full bottle of red. Now it is only half full. — Banno
Everything, says Hume, falls into the category of either a priori - things that tautologically true - or experiential - things we know from experience. — Wayfarer
But the future is not like the past.
Yesterday I had a full bottle of red. Now it is only half full.
Supposing that the future is like the past requires quite a selective view. — Banno
Deduction is useless in terms of gaining further understanding, since it necessarily only restarted what is know based upon known observations. I've never witnessed any deductive argument that actually added anything to understanding since all of them rely on inductive proportions that can and will be disputed. — Rich
But I take it we agree that it is habit that underpins our acceptance that some things will be the same tomorrow. It is the exceptions to this that require explanation. If I had found a full bottle of claret this morning, I would have cause for puzzlement. — Banno
So I think Hume had it pretty well right, in describing our acceptance of continuity as a habit. It's not something that requires justification. It's not as if, were we unable to find such a justification, we wold cease to plan our mealtimes. — Banno
if any of these disbarred tomorrow from following on form today, we would reject them. — Banno
I guess it all depends what you think is a central question of epistemology. Is it how can we hope to have certain knowledge? Or is it how is it that we can reason in optimal fashion? — apokrisis
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.