Just show me why I’m wrong.
Right…this is why we don’t rely on solely inductive logic for scientific use.
It’s just part of a tool.
It’s also one of our blind spots.
For instance, magnets can’t cause non-metallic objects to levitate because we have never seen it do so…but then we just saw it happen, and what was the scientists first response? Inductive testing…
First, it was water, then it was a piece of pizza, then paper, eventually he considered that because of these first examples, that a living organism may levitate as well since other non metallic matter was levitating.
That’s inductive logic.
Then he got a frog; it levitated.
Since doing this, it is held that humans can be levitated by a strong diamagnetic charge…this is completely inductive logic.
NASA is now attempting to figure out how to build such a construct based solely on the fact that a frog the size of a pinkey (something around less than 30mm) floated when surrounded by something near 15 or so teslas.
Now, if nothing else has been inductive logic, then NASA’s aspirations are definitely inductive.
We don’t know if all swans are white, but we know that a specific swan is white, yet NASA is willing to wager that all swans are white because a specific swan is white.
I just said that it uses it, not that it’s a sole conclusion method.
There aren’t any…I said science uses inductive logic. I didn’t say that science rests on inductive logic. (see frog levitation above)
I said inductive logic works in math…it’s used in physics all the time.
For instance, I’ve never been shown that 2+2 is not equal to 4 in a base 10 system, therefore I adopt that 4+4=8.
I have no evidence from experience to show me that 4+4/=8 in a base 10 system.
In more complex methods, we do this allot in physics.
The nuclear bomb was a mathematical induction of the atomic bomb, for instance.
Again, however, we do not rest on the inductive logic, we simply use it until we have a formulation, after which we take the final formulation and test it deductively.
If it passes deduction as well, hurray!
If not, back to the lab to deconstruct our inductive logical formulation and find out where we went wrong…which…oddly enough, is inductive logic.
The common phrase is, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” is actually humorous considering that Hume would say, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result”.
Then of course…if we cannot count on the ball to move because of the first ball, then we can’t even move forward…which is Hume’s second half of discussing that we can’t walk around without induction or we would die.
The point is to demonstrate a positive, and not ask someone to prove a negative. That you’d ask someone to prove a negative, in this thread, is somewhat comical.
“All reasonsing about matters of fact seem to be based on the relation of cause and effect”
“To the question what is the nature of all our reasonins concerning matter of fact? the proper answer seems to be that they are based on the relation of cause and effect. When it is further asked, what is the foundation of all our reasonings aboutcause and effect: we can answer in one word, experience…the conclusions we draw from that experience are not based on reasoning or on any process of the understanding.”
Deduction is a process of the understanding, the world is known in terms of matters of fact, matters of fact are known based on the relation of cause and effect, cause and effect is not based on reasoning or the understanding HENCE deduction can tell us nothing about the worlds past or present states.
Really, gib’s statement wasn’t as forceful as it seems, it really says quite little.
So tell men, when was it you first had a sensory experience of a 2 in nature?
As for the part I’ve bolded, what part of the detonator is the mathematical induction? lol
No, it means deduction can tell us nothing factually certain about cause and effect.
It means that, empirically, I cannot be 100% certain that fire will be hot tomorrow, nor that fire caused that hot sensation I felt. However, I have deduced from past experiences that fire is pretty fucking hot, and I can therefore have a reasonable expectation that it still will be pretty hot tomorrow - until I have a sensory experience that negates that conclusion.
All Hume is critical of is the NECESSARY connection to cause and effect, Hume still finds it a reasonable thing to make the constant connection as long as the claim is qualified.
I’ve done that - that’s what my post was all about. You’re the one who called it “blatantly wrong”, but this is vacuus unless you demonstrate why.
No you have not, you have an empty assertion. Do you even know what it means to provide evidence? lol
You didn’t “deduce” you inferred. This doesn’t mean it’s not reasonable to infer, it just means it’s not a matter of deduction. You’re correct on everything except for this bullshit fetish of a distinction.
What kind of fricken evidence are you looking for? It’s a fact. My assertion:
is exactly what Hume showed (you might dispute him, but this exactly what he says in his philosophy). You want evidence that Hume said this? Read him!
What did you want me to say? I’m just paraphrasing Hume.
Oh, if you say so it must be true then. I don’t know what I was thinking, having read Hume myself, and knowing that you are absolutely incorrect.
Not a criticism
So I somehow did not deduce that fire is hot? How is it I did not do that?
I agree that I am inferring that fire is the cause of said “hot sensory experience.” But I’m not claiming that fire causes the hot sensory experience, I am claiming that fire feels really fucking hot and that I have deduced this from feeling fire being really fucking hot in the past.
What’s the difference between saying that fire causes the hot experience and saying that fire feels really fucking hot? If there is a difference, it is lost on Hume.
So I’m just supposed to take your word for it? Hey, I’ve read Hume too, and I’m pretty sure my quote sums up everything I’ve read. If we’re ever going to settle our disagreement, you’re going to have to show me where I’m wrong. I’m not going to write out Hume’s entire life’s work just because you want some “positive” evidence.
lol
There is an outside chance he might present the Hume statement that he is paraphrasing. I have a slight inkling that the “paraphrasing” may be part of the problem.
Point taken.
It seems to me that we’re all saying the same thing, only we haven’t yet realized it.
Based on your renditions of Hume and your fire-being-hot example, you’ve clearly misread Hume in the greatest way possible. Don’t talk to me about bad paraphrasing.