</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) read hume...
1. I mean that there is no necessary connection between events...
just because a happens it does not necessarily follow that b will happen
2. that is the fallacy of induction that is inherent in scientific "facts" which are actually theories and percentages<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
To Hume it may concern:
1. The connection between events has proved to be a quite-fruitful assumption to humans. Of course, it has to be dealt with carefully, because events don't repeat identically. Science has been pretty good at scoping out when they do and when they don't.
2. No, that's not the "fallacy of induction," that's "induction as a useful tool." And, no, facts are not 'actually theories' -- facts are much-easier come by than are theories. Neither is absolute certainty -- something science doesn't deal in. Scientific theories and facts can both be swept away by new discoveries; but both are established after rigorous study, so may in fact be rather persistent.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) 3. kant would argue that you create space and time as a function of your mind... critique of pure reason... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Good for him. The issue is whether the concepts of space and time, created by human minds, are useful for getting around, and for explaining, the universe. They seem to be working fairly well, at least until some better concepts come along.