Sarax - Hume took it too far, i think. I have stated elsewhere (in my “shadow thread”) that he did not vanquish causes and effects, for these are perfectly good human constructs, but he did vanquish Causation, the capital-c version of which being what he was after. He destroyed the notion of Causation as a property of the Universe. That is what he set out to do. All he has to do is defeat God - there is nothing to stand in God’s place. He was not required to replace God with anything. Epistemically, he did not need to invent anything other than what is left to the skeptic - that we must make do with guesses. I see nothing wrong with that.
He’s crazy for thinking thet peace can be found in skepticism. Hume himself advocated a form of common sense, where one lives and loves as though the human intellect was actually shaped accordingly to a mechanically viable universe.
, to claim that Imp will continue to post as though nothing ever connects in our intellect because he has done so so far begs the question and is an illogical assumption. So hope lies still…
I don’t reall think you can say he vanquished causation, not logically cos his premise was bollocks, because he denied all evidence of causation anywhere in order to “vanquish causation”
but lets pretend that he did…
i wasn’t suggesting he should replace God with anything, but if he is gonna trash the concept of causes and effects he needs to replace it with something…
thats what i meant
ad homs aside, I am not looking for peace. I understand that hume explained that we continue to exist as if the error of induction does not occur and I have said so repeatedly. humans are not logical animals. but when one posits the “truth” of the god named “science” instead of a metaphysical god, the logic against either is the same.
-Imp
Induction only begs the question if you try to convert induction into deduction via the implicit premise of natural law. Induction, without the implicit premise of natural law, does not beg the question.
So, I am trying to address induction alone, not induction-cum-deduction.
Imp’s not crazy, he’s just stubborn.
Sarax - I disagree with you, and have said so. He didn’t vanquish causes and effects, but Causation. He didn’t deny any evidence - he argued that there wasn’t any. It is, in the end, a common atheist argument (now). There is no evidence for God - unless you think there is. Hume wanted to appeal to the learned men of his day - he did not write in a vacuum. So he chose physics, which was a hot topic. He discussed this topic within the context of empiricism, which was the current philosophical milieu. He claimed and argued that the evidence that the phenomenological world presents does not support Causation.
He does not, I think, need to replace C & E with anything at all. Philosophy is eliminative - there are plenty of ideas out there, the philosopher seeks to discard the bad ones. That we take educated guesses based on probabilites is what he replaces causation with - a mundane notion. But philosophy shouldn’t be so eager as it sometimes is to look past the mundane. It isn’t fancy, but so what? We don’t need a theory for everything. Some stuff’s right there to see.
can you explain what you mean by this more clearly I’m not sure I understand…
then simply present an inductive argument that does not beg the question…
or try to demonstrate induction without an argument (implicit or explicit)…
-Imp
I’m not necessarily implying he should replace this specifically, I was making a general statement, everytime I am reading anything by Hume he is criticising something, but he never seems to actually put forward any ideas himself, I just don’t appreciate that, like I said its a personality clash of sorts…
I disagree that he vanquished causation as a theory, because although it can and has been vanquished, Hume did a bad job… he basically said a) just because there is causea nd effect within the world doesn’t mean the world was caused (ok i could accept that maybe) and secondly b) there isn’t cause and effect in teh world anyway- and this I think is rubbish, unless we are going to doubt all empirical evidence of course…
sara
obw - The purpose of a deductive argument, the intent of anyone that uses one, is to show what must necessarily be so - given true premises, blah, blah blah.
An inductive “argument” is a very different thing. It is another usage of the word “argument”. Even if it tells us what is, it does not tell us that what is is necessarily so. Even if it is, in fact, so.
This is because a deductive argument only states that which is implicit in the premises - the conclusion is included within the premises - taken as a whole. An inductive “argument” does not tell us that which is implicit in the premises - it adds a premise, so to speak. Inductive argument can continue ad infinitum - which is not necessarily a bad thing. Deductive arguments cannot.
It is true that there is no problem with induction if the final premise is never used in a deductive argument. But that simply is not what Hume was talking about. He was talking about a long and vivacious history of formal proofs for the existence of God. You’ve moved past Hume, and so anything you say about induction simply is irrelevant to Hume. It’s like saying the production of television shows in color is no longer a problem, now that we have color televisions.
All inductive arguments do not beg the question. It is impossible for an inductive argument to beg the question. Just think about it. Only a deductive argument can beg the question.
I will try to come up with a clearer way to present this and if I manage it, you can read it tomorrow.
[quote=“Obw”]
All inductive arguments do not beg the question. It is impossible for an inductive argument to beg the question. Just think about it. Only a deductive argument can beg the question.
Perhaps if you could work out an argument from experience in SL or PL you would then know what it is that you’re assuming that begs the question.
Such as
Px - x is such that it happened in the past
Qx - X is such that it will happen in the future
s - the sun rose
Px->Qx(assumpion)
Ps->Qs
Ps(assumption)
Qs
Seems off…
It’s the premise of natural law…
Ok here’s my probably final attempt to explain this well. If I fail, take it as a reflection of me and not of the position/argument itself. Myself and others, including a professor, think this has some merit - more fool me if I cannot explain it sufficiently.
You are essentially right that Hume himself would not be satisfied with this as he says you cannot establish laws of nature. From a logical point of view only he is right - but I am supporting a view that we need not play by his rules. He sets up the problem of induction is such as a way as to be insoluble - denying any natural necessity between cause and effect. If we question this essential claim that there is no such natural necessity (because his OWN arguments beg the question) then we now see there might be other types of ‘guarantees’, non logic based, that the conclusion will be true if the premises are true themselves. Such a guarantee would be provided by the laws of nature. Then of course, if there is such a guarantee, it is not irrational to rely on inductive arguments as the problem of induction would suggest.
Imp: the question being begged - this accusation can only be made once Hume’s own assumptions, as I highlight in the OP, are in place. I would say - no, it is Hume’s assumptions which beg the question, and we shouldn’t feel obliged to play this game by his rules.
obw - I have a question. Is your pofessor a rationalist? Are you? I will agree with you that deductive arguments beg a question. That is my general position - that we cannot escape begging some question or another. Unlike you, this does not bother me. And I will go further in that inductive reasoning does not, strictly speaking, beg a question in the same way. But assumptions are perfectly acceptable in philosophical thinking, and are present in inductive reasoning. It’s assumptions that you are trying to eliminate. But if you are trying to eliminate assumptions, you are playing the wrong game - for you state the Hume is right - logically. If you are not applying logic, then the question of assumtpions disappears anyway. I have lost your point.
f
This is an interesting thread and you are right, Hume’s argument does presuppose a few things. However, I think that if you question the things that Hume’s argument presupposes (which is, in part, what Wittgenstein and Derrida do) then you only make inductive arguments and the laws of nature even more questionable. You are pursuing the classic line of attack - demonstrate that your opponent implicitly requires certain things to make his argument. I don’t mean this in a glib manner, or as a patronising remark, I’m actually impressed that you’ve got this far. However, you have miles to go before you sleep because you’ve yet to demonstrate how questioning the assumptions of Hume’s argument in any way allows induction and the laws of nature a ‘way back in’ to the discussion as anything other than useful beliefs.
Personally I think that you’d do better to approach this attempted refutation of Hume by building from a neo-pragmatist base than by trying to exert some ‘pure’ logical move to trump Hume’s argument as it stands. That’s my advice, take it or leave it. I know that if you take it you are going to ask me to expand on this so perhaps all I’ve achieved in this post is to spin enough rope to hang myself, with you as the grim-faced onlooker amongst the baying crowd.
Keep it going…
One of the assumptions I highlighted was that there is no necessity other than logical necessity - and therefore without this assumption in place, it’s the perfect slot for a natural law necessity, of the type which govern our world already… or do you not eat food? Remember that induction says you are not being rational to eat food based on it always having sated your hunger previously…
edit: Faust - greater parts of what I do rely somewhat doggedly on observation and experience, and ‘common sense’ (which is a particular term I define a particular way, and have done so in the thread ‘in defence of common sense’ on ilp not long ago). I am not a descartes with an armchair, a fireplace and no windows.
Hmmmm. I’n not sure what “natural law” means outside the context of some form of rationalism. And I cannot discern any explanation from you about this. You seem to require that this natural be known by some direct obseravtion, with no reasoning required on our part. It cannot be known by induction, because that really would be begging the question. Such laws would have to be immediately knowable, like a Chevrolet to the face.
Observation and experience, common sense (albeit with your own special definition) these are fine for every day life. And indispensable for philosophy. You will not accept this, but Hume knew this - but this was not his purpose. He had a purpose. If you have different purposes, which you cannot know because you ignore his purposes, then you are talking apples and oranges. You cannot sensibly attack another philosopher without knowing his purpose. Unless his logic is falwed to begin with. But you say he is correct, logically. I’m still lost.
Hume surely is wrong if we are talking nutrition. He wasn’t. He was talking about physics to expose his point about metaphysics. I am so sure of this that I cannot continue (I’m sure I won’t be missed). If he was not - his points are so trivial that he is not worth discussing. You may not be aware of this, but that is your strategy here, at root. To trivialise Hume. Which you are free to do. I could do this with Sartre, and have. It takes about sentence ot two.
Have fun, my friend.
Well my wider point is that Hume is the victim of a medieval problem, and all this began after I finished (only) a year’s study into medieval philosophy.
The premise of natural law is a little separate to what I would call a ‘natural law’. The premise is the proposition that from all observed cases of P are Q, so If P then Q, is a truth-apt proposition.
Basically though I think you’ve got it. Like many philosophical notions, when it clicks in it seems almost trivial, or obvious. Yes, Hume was being silly, but it wasn’t really his fault (but thats another thread). I think you might be surprised if you were to do another reading of Hume with this thread in mind. He really doesn’t start from a level playing field.
ok I think I finally get what you are saying but I’m not sure…
essentially logically hume proves that cause and effect doesn’t work… but you are saying that his argument is begging the question…
and thus disregarding it, and suggesting that perhaps instead of using logic we could use the laws of nature to validate a claim, if and only if the premises hold… and thus trust inductive arguments…
OBW am I on the right track or have I entirely missed the point
sara
xxx