"Truth-preservation" is really just consistency, which means not having premises which contradict one another or the conclusion. The validity of deductive arguments is independent of the truth of premises, maybe that's where you're becoming confused; I don't know. — Janus
↪Magnus Anderson
I would have to first understand what you mean (and you haven't explained it in any way that makes it all clear to me) before I could agree or argue against it. So, best leave it, I guess. :s — Janus
You believe in it not for any reason, but because you can't help it. — SophistiCat
↪Magnus Anderson
No I can't comprehend your eccentric account of the rules of reason. — Janus
Yes, I think modern physics makes it seem plausible that invariance is not deterministic, but instead probabilistic; yet it seems that invariance on macro scales does look, for all intents and purposes, deterministic. — Janus
So i’m Going to suggest that invariance is something of what Sam called a hinge proposition. — Banno
I would not put it that way; I would say that we follow inductive reasoning for the practical reason that there is no alternative — Janus
and I would also say that it is reasonable to have faith in it, because, leaving aside (what I would consider unreasonable) radical skepticism, all our experience and understanding confirms that nature is indeed replete with invariance. There seems, on the contrary to be no good reason, beyond a certain kind of carping logic, to question that. — Janus
*Or you could do something even more convoluted and put your faith into some religious or metaphysical narrative (a la apokrisis) from which the regularity of nature would then fall out. — SophistiCat
Constraint is, as I understand it, simply a limit to what is possible. The opposite of it is freedom.
— Magnus Anderson
Yep. Simple really.
The world we live in, in other words, is stable enough to make induction good at making predictions. This makes perfect sense.
— Magnus Anderson
Yep. You got it again. — apokrisis
There is chaos but this chaos is subsumed to order. I think that Perice said something along the lines — Magnus Anderson
So you are saying that the problem of induction doesn’t hinge on the metaphysical assumption that causality may not be invariant? — apokrisis
And so I simply say go with that same assumption. Permit nature to vary. And then understand it’s apparent invariance in terms of the self organisation of limits.
After all, that is the world as science has found it to be, if you’ve been keeping up. — apokrisis
Right, circular reasoning again. Induction -> Science -> Fanciful metaphysics -> Induction. — SophistiCat
If by "no alternative" you mean a sort of psychological compulsion then that is just what I was saying. — SophistiCat
Aaand... we are back to circular reasoning. — SophistiCat
What's wrong with a circular argument if it takes the form of the scientific method? — apokrisis
I interpret it to mean that you are in fact a monist. A dialectical monist. Yin-yang philosophy. You want to unite the opposites. Uncontrolled interaction is not enough. There must be a central force, some kind of God, controlling the antagonism. — Magnus Anderson
Hence your focus on trichotomies, triadic conceptual structures. — Magnus Anderson
You have a center and two extremes. Left, middle and right. — Magnus Anderson
So in the case of order~chaos dichotomy, you want to subsume the two to a third category which is basically that of order (which explains why you make a distinction between constraints and patterns or regularities which you say are merely observable.) — Magnus Anderson
So you're acknowledging the dualism and then reducing it to monism under the guise of trialism. There is chaos but this chaos is subsumed to order. — Magnus Anderson
Its utter pointlessness? I mean, if you've already helped yourself to induction, what's the point of circling back to "justify" it via one of its purported consequences? — SophistiCat
We take these premises on faith simply because there are no viable alternatives; we cannot even begin to imagine what an alternative could look like. — Janus
Not really. We have to make assumptions to get started. As I have shown if you make the assumptions explicit inductive reasoning can be framed in deductive forms. — Janus
Science bases itself on the assumption that there are "laws of nature" that determine the invariances that are observed everywhere. — Janus
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.