On Aug 11, 10:19 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 3:00 pm, Malrassic Park <Malen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Liar. This is not a Kant quote. Some Objectivist you are.
>
> I thought you dopey Kantians were happy with contradictions?
>
> sheeeeesh FFS Sparky, make up your mind, is reality determined by you
> via non-contradictory identification or not?
>
Inductive reasoning has this non-contradictory nature in relation to
the past, but once you propose that this non-contradictory reasoning
extends across all time including the future, it goes beyond possible
experience and you are not entitled to your conclusions about it.
Every day the sun has risen
The sun rose yesterday
The sun rose the day before that
The sun rose the day before that, etc.
Therefore, the sun will rise tommorow.
Hume's problem is very simple, he asks why we should have the right to
believe conclusions that we arrive at through inductive logic. He
claims that nothing can be proved in an accurate and undenaible way
through induction, and therefore he claims that we have no reason for
beliving that the sun will rise tommorow, or that radioactive dating
technics will absolutely hold tommorow, etc.
By introducing assumptions we go beyond the given evidence our
experience affords: generally what we assume as cause is not fully or
not at all given in experience, and neither are many of the predicted
effects we deduce from these assumptions.
No observation or experiment, however extended, can give more than a
finite number of repetitions; therefore, the statement of a law - B
depends on A - always transcends experience. Yet this kind of
statement is made everywhere and all the time, and sometimes from
scanty material. It is impossible to justify a law by observation or
experiment, since it transcends experience.
http://www.maartensz.org/logic/Induction/induct0.html
> Michael Gordge
|
