| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Dec 1, 2003, 02:04 am
| #1 (permalink) (top) |
| Hot Lava Posts: 1,859 | what do you know? how do you know it? is it justified? is it justified through inductive reasoning? can someone name one scientific law (that relates to the world, not mathematics) that does not use inductive reasoning? credit to D Palmer for parts of this: ""x causes y" where x is the event of billiard ball a striking billiard ball b and y is the event of ball b moving after being struck... is the sentence "x causes y" analytic? no, because it is possible to conceive of a striking b, and b not moving... is the sentence "x causes y" synthetic? one may claim it is, but Hume analyzed the concept further, breaking it into 3 parts, priority, contiguity and necessary connection... priority could be traced to sense impression, x preceeded y; same with contiguity, x contacted y... but no matter how many times Hume observed ball a strike ball b, he could not find any NECESSARY CONNECTION... the fact that if x happens, y MUST happen... without this necessary connection, causality made no sense... Hume demonstrated that when we claim that one thing a causes another b, we are only reporting on our EXPECTATION that a will be followed by b... this is a psychological fact about us and not a fact about the world... this is the problem of induction... what makes us so certain that the future will behave like the past? because it has always happened that way in the past begs the question... Must it do so in the future just because it has always has in the past? what guarantees that the "laws of nature" will hold tomorrow? there is no analytic or synthetic guarantee of this... Hume concluded that there are no necessary connections between any two events in the universe. Hume demonstrated that human life was incompatible with rationality and that human endeavors always had to be extrarational, thereby irrational (rationally one would never know that the loaf of bread that nourished me yesterday will nourish me today. therefore, one can never be rationally motivated to eat.) http://www.philosophyclassics.com/etexts/776/12491/ god is dead... if knowledge is justified true belief, (as most epistemologists claim) science (or anything actually) based on inductive reasoning is not justified and cannot be knowledge... ... knowledge ... not possible? nihilism indeed... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results... |
|  |
|
Dec 1, 2003, 02:56 am
| #2 (permalink) (top) |
| Molten Ash  Posts: 68 | Just curious... are you telling me that introducing a flame into an environment heavily (dang... I'm blanking... opposite of diluted... kinda like concentrated... probably starts with an "s." Man, I feel stupid) in petroleum gas will not always result in an explosion? Read your own signature, then tell me again what concept you're trying to explain. |
|
| |
|
Dec 1, 2003, 01:27 pm
| #3 (permalink) (top) |
| Hot Lava Posts: 1,859 | saturated? it probably will result in an explosion... but that isn't the point... you cannot know if it will... the destruction of knowledge is the point... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results... |
|
| |
|
Dec 2, 2003, 02:58 pm
| #4 (permalink) (top) |
| Molten Ash Posts: 68 | I refer back to your signature. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" If you truly preach this, then doing the same thing over and over should result in the same thing happening. So what you're saying is that you're crazy... Or did I get something wrong? |
|
| |
