So Hume's premises should be accepted over others because he is "doing psychology?" And it's not problematic that they are self-undermining because its "psychology?"

But surely past thinkers were just as much engaged in a psychology of knowing, so why are they all to be dismissed and Hume to be accepted on sheer assertion?

So Hume's premises should be accepted over others because he is "doing psychology?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all. We know induction is invalid. Hume presents an empirical answer, not a logical one. If you have a better, present it for consideration. We might apply a bayesian calculus to choose between the options...

replied:
the unexpected — Banno

You seemed to want to safely distance yourself from that. OK. So what do you deduce from the unexpected? How is the sudden need for an explanation also the idea of an explanation? When are you going to start saying something sensible here rather than posturing?

Yes! Again, we are not disagreeing with what's been said; I'm just pointing out that this is not logic. — Banno

But then…

One has reason to suspect a general principle lurks. It is worth shaping up in systematic fashion through deducing the consequences of such an explanation and then seeking the evidence that would offer inductive support. Or abduction as inference to the best explanation. — apokrisis

Note the move involved. From the particular to the general and from the general back to the particular. The surprise, the principle, the prediction. If you can get back out what you first put in, you’re in good shape.

So you simply reply in bad faith. It’s all you’ve got. Lame and performative efforts to pretend you are waving and not drowning.

You already have your causal relation, before you start on the logic of checking it. You bring it in to confirm your bias. That's the criticism. — Banno

Tediously you again skip over the deduction that fleshes out the move from the particular to the general.

If first comes the particular surprise as you argue, then has to come its general explanation. After that you have something to test.

And how is it confirming a bias? It is seeking to confirm the general explanation of the particular surprise. The confirmation comes then in the form of narrowing the scope for doubt, not for actually asserting complete faith in some prior hazy belief.

It is like you haven’t even been introduced to science as a method. You come up with the whackiest claims.

Abduction is not a formalisable process that can provide an algorithmic answer to Hume's scepticism. — Banno

To go from the particular to the general isn’t that hard to understand surely? Why else is fundamental physics all about seeking the symmetries that explain Nature? If symmetry is getting broken, then what is the symmetry is the sensible question. What is the general ground to the particular event? What is the wider principle that would make some unexpected event a matter of course? It’s all pretty bleeding simple.

You are making such a fool of yourself with your strained efforts to deny the obvious. But why stop now that you are on a roll? :up:

So what do you deduce from the unexpected? — apokrisis

Deduce? Nothing - that's the point!

When are you going to start saying something sensible here rather than posturing? — apokrisis

Soon after you start listening.

Good night.

We know induction is invalid. — Banno

Who gives a fuck about validity. Pragmatism is about being happy that reasoning can be useful. What matters is defining reason in a reasonable fashion. Mathematics might want proof. But then where does its axioms come from? What is the psychological process that grounds them? When does all the specious bullshit stop?

You have to sound reasonable when you make your grant application. — apokrisis

Is that a law of nature? I think it's the advice of a propagandist. Scream softly or the children might hear.

Who gives a fuck about validity — apokrisis

That explains quite a bit.

Soon after you start listening. — Banno

Look at the big sook. Not one reply to any point I have made. Just the usual posturing and deflection.

Is that a law of nature? I think it's the advice of a propagandist. Scream softly or the children might hear. — unenlightened

I appreciate your effort. But as a zinger, it’s a complete fail. Take some pride in your work if you want to wound.

That explains quite a bit. — Banno

Zing!!!!

Take some pride in your work if you want to wound. — apokrisis

I don't want to wound at all, and I'm not applying for a grant. I'm not even remotely saying anything original to take pride in. I'm interested in the attempt to defeat Hume, who I see as one of the great defenders of the nascent science, in the name of a false and contrived rationalism. I think it is a great pity and a disservice to science and to humanity. Science is not a religion; it makes no eternal pronouncements but remains humble, provisional, seeking understanding not overseeing. So maybe cut out the bullying posture a bit; it's unscientific.

By “we”, you mean you. — apokrisis

While @Banno can be as annoying as you to try to have a conversation with, in this he speaks for me as well. You are obscure Apo. It took me ages to decode from your posts your view of consciousness, which turns out to be a fairly straightforward reductive functionalism. Presumably obscurity is your intent, or you wouldn't speak the way you do. You decline interrogation (unless sympathetic), which is your prerogative of course. You say interesting stuff sometimes, but it's hard going to ask questions to get it clarified. Which is what philosophers like to do. @Banno is hard going as well, and slides away. @180 Proof, like you, relatively quickly moves to insult and condescension, although perhaps less so now. Everyone else submits pretty much, except for some of the crazy ones who get banned.