The Problem of Induction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лис 2024
- A description of the Problem of Induction (an argument against the justification for any scientific claim). This deals with the strong claim that science and induction guarantee knowledge.
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
(#Induction #PhilosophyOfScience)
Am new to philosophy. This person made learning fun and funny. I always thought the aim of science was to have knowledge so we could have greater control. Definitely subbed.
How does this change that (if I am correct in thinking you mean that)? We'd still have greater control with or without this thinking because science still gives us the statistical probabilities we need to make a decision that'd give us the best chance of having control.
@@AClown thats the difference between scientific instrumentalism and scientific realism
People complaining about the voice? Heck, I enjoyed the video for this dramatic voice
Wow, this is a good video about induction, but what with the voice tho?
Calm down, Rod Sterling.
His voice is dramatic and i like it. Gives a certain edge to it.
The problem of induction is a metaphysical category error and can be answered thus;
Replication confers certainty and Truth is that which we can be most certain of. Whether the past gives some direct evidence of what will happen in the future is irrelevant. What matters is what the evidence best supports and when similar starting conditions have led to similar outcomes repeatedly, that's exactly the same validity as scientific measurement.
A simple solution: tentatively say all the predictions are probable, but then we don’t have to say so explicitly for every one of them, first because it’s annoyingly pedantic and second because for a lot of them the probability of being wrong is so small that the consideration may not be worth it. And if we actually suspect that something might be wrong, just design an experiment where if it fails, the most likely conclusion is the negation of the hypothesis. If it succeeds then our confidence in the hypothesis goes up, either way our understanding of the world comes closer to the way it really is. Hume might have used this problem to deny that things objectively exist, but we know better.
hey are there any 3rd years here from janki devi memorialcollege im just here predicting that in future youlll be wandering here somewhwere in 1 or 2 years. remember everyone youll pass and make it thru and if velmuurgan sir is still teaching yoou then tell him from my side he is the best and we all miss him
I'm not from Janki Devi but I am from Delhi
Does that college have a philosophy program?
which is the next video? please do mention its name as well so that we can easily find it out
I think mathematical induction is different, as in, it checks every possibility... if it didn't then the Goldbach conjecture would be considered true in the mathematical world
If my logic is weak then my certainly is greater. Only evolution can change me.
I like your way in presentation by using words, It's creative.
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed.
Thanks a lot, sir. But I have a request. I need some sources to explain the concepts of certainty and uncertainty, please.
Homie reading Feldman like a tru king
Another great video. I have a question though in relation to this. Being that science can only give us a "weak" claim does this mean that reliabilism doesnt necessarily lead us to an objective truth. Ive seen reliabilism used primarily to counter presuppositional arguments, but it seems like you cant necessarily "know" anything just because things have been shown to be reliable. Thanks!
Be careful. Reliablism is an externalist view of epistemlogy. in other words you don't need to know that it's working for it to work. Basically you know things if you have reliable ways of forming beliefs, but you may not be aware that your process for forming beliefs is reliable. In fact you may think that you have a reliable belief forming process, but not.
The point is that it may be the case that science is in fact a reliable belief forming process, however we cannot prove that it is. The video shows that we cannot prove it, however for reliablism as an epistemology to work, we do not need to show that it is reliable, it just needs to be.
The problem then is that we have no way of knowing if our beliefs are actually reliably formed or not (that's what you get when you deny closure and become an externalist). There is no way for us to say that one process is more reliable than another. That science is more reliable than scripture, for example. One of the many reasons to worry about externalist conceptions of justification.
Thanks for the quick reply! So why doesnt science's efficiency, and pragmatic abilities as compared to scripture make it more reliable.
In order for something to be an epistemological claim, is it required that you have to prove it to the 100% objective truth?
Since objective truth seems to be simply unattainable , it seems fruitless to make that any claim is objective truth and would seem better to deny access objective truth, but claim what is most likely the state of affairs.
TheAtheistChef
Here's how it works. If Science is in fact effective, then it is a reliable method of producing beliefs. The trick is that for an externalist viewpoint, we don't need to know if science is effective to gain knowledge from it. The problem is that the theists can make the same externalist knowledge claim, and neither side can speak to each other.
If you want to say that you know that science is effective, you are no longer an externalist, you are an internalist, and that brings it's own set of problems. Before you can show that science is a good method, you have to show that it's results are correct, but in order to show that it's results are correct, you need to show that science or at least observation will lead to knowledge, and the skeptic won't even let you get that far.
To your question about proving truth, it depends on your position. For the internalist and the skeptic, yes. You need to 100% justify your claim. It needs to be true, justified belief. For the externalist, it does nto matter what you can prove, just that your method is de facto reliable, or truth producing. The problem here, as stated above, is that the theist can claim that their method is more de facto truth producing than the scientist's and does nto have to back up that claim. The contextualist will say it depends on what kind of knowledge you are talking about. Philosophical knowledge must be backed up, but garden variety knowledge does not need proof.
If you don't think we can get to objective truth, then it follows that we can't get to the most likely state of affairs either. Because then we would be able to access the objective truth A is more likely than B. Probabilites are impossible to prove without some objective truth setting a baseline. I have never seen one demonstrate that there is a 100% likely hood that the world will not end in the next second. Therefore there is no objective way to judge or prove probabilities.
There may be an objective truth, but I have never seen an argument to the effect that we have any access to it.
Hey man, love your style. What do you make of all the 'determinism is a self-evident truth' claimers?
The bridge between the past and the future is the "present". Since every object exist only in the present, the "now", where past are memories/information and future are predictions/wishes etc.
In physics is well establish that time is human mind construct is motion, a concept not an abject.
carmel Ka What about the present implies that the future will be like the past? And in metaphysics there is an open debate about the reality of time. Check out McTaggart's article on the Unreality of Time for more info. Physics, as noted in the video, relies on induction, and therefore cannot provide truth.
1.I will check out McTaagart, somehow I like physics/IT more :) :
"By international treaty the standard for the second, the unit of time, is defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of a particular electron transition in cesium 133 atoms. So a time measurement is a direct or indirect comparison to this defined standard."
2.Physics uses abduction, deductive and inductive method and most important experiments and observations/common observation to draw certain conclusion/theoremas that stand logycaly sounds unless you'll bring a counter positive to refute. Detail explained:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
And the law of cause and efect is build upon that,since you don;t bring a counter evidence against it: the law stays sound, falsifible and non refuted. I can detail here a lot, I assume is not the case for now.
carmel Ka 1. Simply because an group of people agree on something, that does not make it true. That's called the fallacy of appeal to the people, or ad populum (ua-cam.com/video/oE4gR0cFKw4/v-deo.html). 2. Abduction is worse than induction (as I will soon get to when I get back to the Teleological argument after our foray into Bayesian Epistemology). And while science may use some deduction, they must use induction do do experiments. The entire scientific method is founded on induction, which, by the definition of logically sound, is not (ua-cam.com/video/p9KuZbHVXSg/v-deo.html). And no method is considered true until proven false. They must be proven to be true. And if you want some counter arguments to observation, try these on for size (ua-cam.com/play/PLz0n_SjOttTfsiKRFRko4ZKM27Rd1BxWN.html and ua-cam.com/play/PLz0n_SjOttTdlkvD7wDXbK1XjUdXh9dut.html). Finally the law of cause and effect has never been proven. It is assumed without argument. There's a problem with assumptions. Here it is (ua-cam.com/video/V-g7Glyxi98/v-deo.html). You can't just state something and assume it to be true. You have to argue for it. But just in case you still believe in such things, here's some arguments against the truth of science (ua-cam.com/play/PLz0n_SjOttTenxXXdML7fOu1og3D9LaME.html)
"Simply because an group of people agree on something, that does not make it true."
I argue for exception that: Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists.
True is a label of a logical proposition (in this case the law of cause and effect)that requires confirmation from you, skeptical or any other for an instance/observation that refutes it.
I will not go ahead here to give so many examples that law is drown from natural observation,there are too many. (you wrote a reply-"cause" hence we've got a digital text on Internet, for example - "effect")I expect hostely is not the case to go on for now. We observe it all the time.So I reject your statement "Finally the law of cause and effect has never been proven. It is assumed without argument."as unground/unsound and basicaly you didn't gave me a single example that refutes the law so far. The very basic argument is the daily observation upon nature/human body. I argue that law is deductive and sound: we observe it all the time in nature hence we rational agree upon it since is proven debunked/refuted by counter arguments. Otherwise, we can work on it to understand how it works for alleged exceptions so we can improve it .
So, along the history of phylosophy and physics We put a label such as physical law of "cause and effect" or we called it reasonable knowledge.
Again, your argument is going in circle around the epistemology of very notion of "truth"( a label we put to a proposition which requires validation over and over till at least one time is proven as different from a better explanation/observation such as we can put a label as false on it).
Hence, I finally conclude The law of cause and effect provides a rational human knowledge about how our nature works, not labels such truth or false.
carmel Ka There's two levels on which we can doubt the law of cause and effect. First, on the deeply skeptical level, we might say that any of the instances of cause therefore effect that you might list, cannot be shown to be true, since we only have constant conjunction of two events and then infer a cause when one might not exist. Check out Hume or the Illusion of Control if you prefer more contemporary psychology. We want to see causality, but there is no proof of it. Second on a slightly less skeptical level. Simply because something has happened a high number of times does not mean that it will continue to happen. The future is not necessarily like the past. Simply because something has yet to be refuted, does not mean that it is correct. That's an argument from ignorance. ua-cam.com/video/p9ezNBBcg_g/v-deo.html. Your definition of truth is interesting. I'm worried that nothing can be really validated. ua-cam.com/video/TGB9bdsxBuU/v-deo.html
Can you do a video on strawsons response that induction is necessarily rational regardless of UN
Tossed you a like. Some typos but cool video and cool ideology within this channel's makeup. Cheers.
"Indeed, God [Allah] keeps the heavens and the earth from falling apart. If they were to fall apart, none but Him could hold them up. He is truly Most Forbearing, All-Forgiving."
Quran 35:41
Carneades,
Isn't the Problem of Induction self-refuting?
In essence, the Problem of Induction tells us that "All inductive statements do not yield certainty".
However, that statement itself is inductive (with the word 'All' suggesting that it is inferential, general).
Hence, the statement, "All inductive statements do not yield certainty" does not yield certainty.
In other words, the Problem of Induction per se does not yield certainty.
To demonstrate my point:
Specific Claim (a): Inductive Argument (1) does not yield certainty.
Specific Claim (b): Inductive Argument (2) does not yield certainty.
Specific Claim (c): Inductive Argument (3) does not yield certainty.
Specific Claim (d): Inductive Argument (4) does not yield certainty.
Specific Claim (e): Inductive Argument (5) does not yield certainty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
General Claim (f): All inductive arguments do not yield certainty.-->this is the Problem of Induction
Thus, the 'formalization' of the Problem of Induction is achieved through drawing a general claim from specific claims.
The Problem of Induction itself is problematic, so to speak.
So isn't the Problem of Induction self-refuting?
I hope you will respond. Thanks.
Neil H. Here are my thoughts. The problem of induction does not use induction to formulate it's conclusion. The reason that we conclude that all inductive arguments do not yield certainty is not from a survey of several arguments, noting that they each don't yield certainty, but rather from a claim that is inherent to inductive arguments, the principle of the uniformity of nature. Stated deductively a simple version of the argument might go like this:
P1) All inductive arguments rely on the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (def of Induction)
P2) The Principle of the Uniformity of Nature can only be justified through circular reasoning.
P3) Anything justified with circular reasoning is not certain
C) Therefore Induction is not certain.
The problems is not sustained by induction, but deduction.
Hume is not appealing to any particular instance of inductive reasoning. He is pointing to the very nature of inductive reasoning itself.
How would the problem of induction fare against the laws of nature? and fundamental properties of nature as well?
+Kervans Lerouge The question is: "What justifies the claim that there are laws of nature? Or Fundamental Properties of Nature?" Inherently the only thing that can is the claim that there are laws of nature. The idea that there are natural laws can only be circularly justified. You need to prove that the laws of nature exist. You need to prove that the future is like the past.
+Carneades.org Oh thanks that really made it easier to understand. Thanks again
Before addressing the sun question, let me start with a simpler coin example. Can you assign a probability to heads coming up? What if I tell you the coin is definitely biased? The answer is you should still assign 0.5 even if the event is in the future and the coin is known to be (but you have no other information).
If physics were to change tomorrow, is there any reason to prefer one kind of bias over another (earlier or later shift)? The answer is no (we don't have any such information). Therefore we should still assign a probability distribution centered around the expected time.
The question is whether the distribution should be diluted (more spread) because of the possibility on an unknown change tomorrow. The answer would be yes (just like the probability distribution for coin toss is affected by the knowledge that the coin is definitely biased), but I don't know how to quantify it.
Change is perceptual, not actual. A thing can only be itself and never something else, otherwise we aren't referring to the same exact thing. (Law of Identity and Non Contradiction)
There is a fallacy in that logic.
It is not circular bc the claim "the future will resemble the past" I think does not have the same ("equal") status as the starting claim "the future will resemble the past". The starting claim could be Epistemological, the second claim Ontological
@Tattle Boad No, it is not circular. How could it be!
Fair and balanced
I would like but the number prevents me to disturb the count
Minute 3:47. I don't quite understand why that is begging the question. Can "The future so far has resembled the past" be the premise and "The future will resemble the past" the conclusion? Why do you need any other premise?
+Gahariet Melanthios Begging the Question (ua-cam.com/video/IJ2dWrI-PTA/v-deo.html) is a problem for arguments that are valid, but only circularly. Take the argument:
P1) I am God.
C) I am God.
This argument is valid, it is not possible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. But that does not make it convincing in any way. If you believe the premise you probably already believe the conclusion. It is an argument, but it probably is not a very convincing one.
As for as this argument:
1) The Future has always resembled the past.
C) The Future will always resemble the past.
The problem is that there is no law of logic which lets you go from the past to the future. (For an in depth look into temporal logic (ua-cam.com/video/yn9a2xqlSWQ/v-deo.html) except the claim that the future will resemble the past. But since that is the very claim that we are trying to prove, using it would be begging the question, it would leave you with an argument that would not convince anyone that did not already accept your conclusion.
interesting. I do really enjoy these. I'm curious though. I can't shake the notion that this is dependent on the example and not actual outcome. Because when I watch examples from this and other videos they always give likely claims. Also claims that don't hold someone liable. What I mean is, safety or medications or even paying ones bills. Your ball example is fine but it's set up that way, and doesn't seem to be complex enough.
For example I have a congenital heart defect. It is rare yes, but due do to how my heart was structured, I recieved less oxygen and would receive less and less oxygen as I got older. I would have died. I think it's a good idea that the doctors knew that it's not only likey I would die, by the nature of the defect, I would absolutely die. They know this by past examples. Now, I had the surgery, and I'm ok now. But I have to take heart medicine. Now, if I were to say that taking my meds is just begging the question, hence I can't use past examples to predict the future, it's not only a strong likelyhood my heart would react to not having my meds, it will happen, as it's happened before. The meds are designed to produce an outcome that can't be accomplished without it.
Sorry for the length but to sum up my comment, aren't a lot of the examples set up in a way to make this work? I just feel like the problem of induction really gets challenged when the examples become more complex and detailed or the severity of the outcome increases. Am I off on something? Am I on to something? I'd love to hear what you think!
There's a differencee between belief and action, because you can't suspend action, you must act even when you are not certain or justified, but you can suspend belief.
To your example, let's challenge some assumptions. You don't know that you have that defect, someone has told you that a test means that you have that defect. They could be mistaken or the test could be wrong. Simply because the test has generally been right in the past does not mean that it is right now. You don't know that you would have died, if you didn't have the condition, you might well have lived. You might also have had a version of the condition that was different from the doctor's past experiences with the disease. That is not to say you were wrong to get the surgery, you can't suspend action like you can belief. But, you can't know that the surgery saved your life. The same can be said of the meds, you don't know if you would have the same reaction to the medication as everyone else. You might have been allergic or not responded to the medication. Even once you start taking it, you can't know that you will keep responding positively to it, you might gain an increased tolerance to the medicine.
You might chose to get surgery or take the medication, but you can't know that either would have helped you.
What you've shown here by using a deductive argument is that induction cannot be proven deductively. However, I would point out that deduction itself also cannot be proven deductively. Nonetheless, this does not solve Hume's problem of induction. Even though induction does not have to be deductively valid, it is still irrational to assume the uniformity of nature i.e nature will always behave the same way (the sun will always rise). Kant tried to suggest that the uniformity of nature is a priori, this doesn't really solve the problem however, it just shift its focus. For the best defence of science I would direct you all to Karl Popper who asserts that as long a a theory is constantly subject to attempts at falsification.
Adam Levy I doubt deductive logic too, and you're right it has not been shown to be able to be proved deductively. I have a recent video dealing with Popper and falsifiability. ua-cam.com/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/v-deo.html
"Standford" should be spelled, "Stanford," and "Who's Problem?" should, I presume, be "Whose problem?" Otherwise, I enjoy the particular slant on the problem - from a basic point of view - as presented here. To some others: Just because a problem is not solved, or indeed is insoluble, is not eo ipso a reason to dismiss it. Its insolubility may, for example, indicate to us something about the limits of human understanding.
Thanks for the notes. This was one of my first videos and it has some flaws. I agree that current insolubility does not imply future insoluability, nor does it provide a reason to continue on ignoring the problem.
Carneades.org I have a question regarding the begging the question fallacy. In plato's dialogue Euthpyro, Euthypro's arguments lead to a begging the question fallacy, and Socrates says nothing is wrong with that. Why are logical fallacies so bad? Why can't we have truth if we have a fallacy?
This is something I came up with without ever even hearing of the actual name.
Cool. There are a lot of ideas out there which are just codifications of a common idea or argument.
What about claims which are independent of time and data? Like 1 + 1 = 2 or I think therefore I am. How are those refuted?
+BigBadWolf A good question. Here's where I do just that: (ua-cam.com/video/6ORH1dXLUx0/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/Xn0Ns_8DXAg/v-deo.html)
What if we define the future as that reality in which we can remember the present?
good job
Ok I think this sounds more like the problem with absolute certainty, less about induction. Am I wrong?
It's about both things. Any conclusion that relies upon observation or empirical evidence can never be logically certain to be true. A priori truths vs a posteriori knowledge
If you know the underlying mechanism that tells why something happened, and that phenomenon is temporally independent, then this problem is solved
Phenomena like a God?
Sir Fredrick Eggenhauser a good example, but it doesn’t need to be anything like that. I guess temporally independent was a little verbose, I just mean that it doesn’t vary with time, d/dt is 0, however you wanna look at it
@@sirfredrickeggenhauser2795
Yes.
@@lebecccomputer287
Yes. It does need to be God.
@@kurtgundy wrong
Could a B theory of time help us justify out premise "The future must resemble the past?"
Not particularly. The debate about the A and the B theory of time is about the structure of time, while the problem of induciton has to do with the content of time. If suddenly gravity stopped funcitoning, it would not matter in terms of the B theory or the A theory of time beyond how they frame it. In the B theory of time, you would have events before and after gravity stopped working. In the A theory of time the moment when gravity stopped working would be in the future, then in the present and then in the past. The events in the timeline don't actually matter for these theories.
Oh nice, thanks for the response. Also, what are the most interesting attempted solutions to the problem of induction? I know about Karl Popper's. Have you done a video on it?
"This means it's a no go" lol
Induction is not a statistical method. For instance: how many lengths of 1 inch must we find before we can conclude that every length is 1 inch? or: how many empty barrels must we examine before we can conclude that every barrel is empty? Both questions are meaningless because, conceptually, a length, in order to be a length, must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. Same with a barrel, conceptually, a barrel may contain something, it may not. I.e. differences are quantitative.
If we ask however: How many barrels must we examine before we can conclude that every barrel is an object we can store things in? Answer: 1. Or to take a more famous example: How many white swans must we observe to conclude that every swan is white? Well, there's not 2 swans that have exactly the same colour, there's always some differences in nuances, thus make it a quantitative question. For instance, an arctic fox, same individual, is brown in the summer, and white during the winter. Colour does not constitute identity, thus we do not form a new concept due to differences in colour. If we ask: How many swans must we observe before we conclude that every swans have wings, or, are oviparous, or, how many foxes to conclude that they are mammals? Answer is 1. Since we now ask about qualitative characteristics, which can be integrated into the concept, we can answer inductively.
Induction cannot be reduced down to mere symbol-logic. It follows a hierarchy from first level observation to higher observations; from first level abstractions to abstractions higher up; just like one cannot understand the concept "theft" if one do not have the concept "property" first. So, when we conclude that the sun will arise tomorrow, is that based not only on observation of what the sun have done so far, but on a variety of lower level generalizations and abstractions integrated into our mind.
Hume's point though is that the first level abstractions also suffer the problem of induction, so you never get to the higher level ones.
Also, Hume and the tradition he comes from (Descartes, Locke, etc) doesn't recognise innate ideas. All ideas are derived from experience, and Hume would claim that although you experience, and may develop abstractions from that, the validity of those abstractions are still entirely up in the air due to the fact that your mind is drawing connection between particular experiences to making universal claims. And even if one did have innate ideas, that has its own problems, but that's another matter.
There are some flaws here. First, the illustration of urn and the black balls is accidental and not essential, and true inductive argument involves essence. Second, the argument for inductive reasoning doesn't really include the supposed premise that whatever happens in the past will happen in the future. Hence, the conclusion that sun will rise again tomorrow is really due to the the nature of the sun and the nature of the other things related to the sun.
The issue is that, in assuming that essential properties exist, you are begging the question against the skeptic. Claiming that some object has a nature in which it normally behaves assumes that the future will be like the past (i.e. that the object will continue to act according to its nature, that object has some essential property). The question of whether a "nature" or "essential property" exists is exactly what is at issue here, so assuming that they exist is not an argument, it is just begging the question.
Carneades.org do we need to prove what is already there such as essence or to be more specific, such as forms? For whatever is, has a form, because form makes a thing what is it. Further, form by itself doesn't change. Take for example the essence of circular things or the form of circularity or the nature of a circle. It is permanently a closed shape whose points have equal distance from its center. That doesn't change. It's the nature of nature not to change. After all, in understanding things, once we grasp the nature, or the essence or its form, we truly understand, because understanding is to grasp what is not changing and if what we grasp is changing, then we didn't understand anything at all. Now, let me talk about doubt which is the starting point of skeptics. Doubt is not a good reason. For, even if we doubt that it will rain today, it doesn't follow that it will not rain today; if we doubt that we will pass a test or a job interview; it doesn't follow that we will not pass. Doubt is subjective and not objective. Subjectivity is not the basis of truth. Since doubt is subject to change (because it is subjective), the more then objective the forms, or nature or essence are, because those doesn't change.
@@arvinmalabanan8321 You can argue for essentialism of a more Aristotelian/Platonic bend, and I think a strong case can be made for it just as you do. I agree with you points here.
However, as carneades.org pointed out, it just begs the question. You are assuming what you should be proving. You aren't solving the problem, but simply side-stepping the problem altogether.
Hume is working from a foundation developed out of Descartes, Locke, etc. He took Descartes metaphysical foundation, and Locke's theory of knowledge to the extreme (collapsing intellect in to imagination) and realised that we never have direct knowledge of essences, only accidental properties. Therefore not only can we not know the essences of anything, but there are no essences, only collections of accidental properties. This is where his bundle theory develops from.
I would argue that he gives good reasons to question how tenable the Cartesian/Lockean foundation is, but if you have to solve the problem by rejecting this foundation, then you haven't actually solved the problem. You just sidestepped it entirely.
@@billyg898, it seems that destroying the foundation of modern philosophy will indeed solve the problem. For, the problem only remains with the foundation of Modern Philosophy. The problem is tightly associated with modern philosophy, because it is founded in doubting what is evident, namely being. We can doubt assumptions rightly, because assumptions are not evident. But, it is to head to the wrong direction by doubting what is evident and finding proof for what is evident, as if what is evident is not different from unproven assumptions. Now, what is essence or substance but beings? So, if beings are evident, and substances or essence or nature is being, then substances, essences or nature are evident. Now, again, those which are evident need not any proof. So, without the foundation of modern philosophy which gives doubt its undue merit, there's really no problem to solve. It is different from removing the foundation of modern philosophy and the problem still remains, as the case here is that in removing the foundation of modern philosophy, the problem is removed with it. That begs the question then on how the problem remains granted that we destroy the erroneous foundation of modern philosophy. How does the problem remain without the foundation of modern philosophy? Can you please enlighten me?
dose this assume that the past and future exist
1:57-2:08 Are you a magician in your spare time?!
David Logan Abracadabra.
Is "The problem of induction" a product of induction?
raythink I don't understand. The problem of induction is a deductive argument that shows that induction will never be deductively valid.
Carneades.org
"The problem of induction is a deductive argument that shows that induction will never be deductively valid."
Let me try to explain with a hypothetical example:
I used to assume that all frogs are green and my assumption changed after I have seen a frog in red. Since my assumption based on my experience could be wrong, I am now not certain about assumptions on other things based on experience.
In the example, I have reached a problem of induction just by induction. That's why I ask : Is "The problem of induction" a product of induction?
raythink No because we know for certain thay induction does not always give us certaim fact. Therefore, since we have a true premise it is a deductive arguement.
mathematical induction and induction are same or different?
Different. Mathematical induction is guaranteed axiomatically. So though arguably equally unjustified, since everything in mathematics must be guaranteed axiomatically it is no worse than anything else.
really missed out on saying "the sun will come out tomorrow" I'd bet my bottom dollar that that joke would have been funny
"The Problem of Induction" is only a problem for philosophers just talking about it.
It's not really a problem at for physicists, chemists, biologists or engineers. Part of their job is to understand risk and certainty.
Science is built on philosophy. Why do people reject the roots, but adore the branches?
@@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459
"Science is built on philosophy."
- I don't buy that; a lot of philosophy is utter bollocks.
Science is based on facts.
If a scientist doesn't want to acknowledge the problem of induction as a problem for scientific knowledge then they don't truly understand certainty.
@@lewis72 Science rests on the philosophy of science. The rejection of philosophy is itself a philosophy.
Someone explains me better why the argument is fallacious, I'm having trouble understanding why it's begging the question
A premise cannot be the same as the conclusion :)
The problem of Induction has an answer its God but without god their is no answer.
@Tattle Boad sir please explain what u are saying u sound absurd
@Tattle Boad i don't even think u know what we are talking about sir. First The atheist position has no standard
@Tattle Boad okay let me explain the argument for you.
@Tattle Boad let's understand what the problem of induction is.
@Tattle Boad why u getting mad
At what point are we just splitting hairs ??
In short nothing is 100 percent true 100 percent of the time -_-
No.Shit.
So much of modern day philosophy are simple truths in elaborate decorations dressed in exotic wording and over explanations
The problem is that we can't even be 1% sure of anything. See ua-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/fhkpE2WI7pU/v-deo.html
@@CarneadesOfCyrene You might not be 1% sure of anything but others are. If they weren't little would get done in this world.
he flatearther!!
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel
If by consume you mean eat, he was famously quite fat.
ua-cam.com/video/l9SqQNgDrgg/v-deo.html
Carneades.org Humes was obese? Lel
Since when did science ever claim to offer 'infallible knowledge'?
During the 19th century and shit
Also people who believe in sciencism
Or just act as it science is the only form of knowledge.
yeah ppl have a double speak about this. They say " science never says it offers infallible truth " and then " science has infallibly ruled this out as not be true".
If it cant offer infallibly truth then you can say it can infallibly and truly rule something out.
your definitions of strong vs weak arguments is wrong
I don't think Hume can be refuted philosophically on this point. His argument against miracles was circular reasoning. However, I think Alfred North Whitehead, in his book "Science and the Modern World" comes pretty close to answering Hume on induction. Whitehead's entire book is an answer to Hume's problem of induction. Hume's problem seems to resolve around the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Hume attributes "reality" to the abstraction of "location" which modern quantum physics has shown to be untenable. Hume was reasoning on the basis of an old understanding of physics. Nevertheless, the success of science is tangible refutation of Hume's argument. Like many useful equations I use, their justification usually comes later by someone who formulates a proof. Scientific experiment would be impossible if Hume were correct. If I see that flame and gasoline results in combustion, and after 100 such combinations results in the same, I am justified probabilistically that there is cause and effect. Cause and effect is a probablistic concept, not an ontological one. Nevertheless, keep skeptical.
+lomertamahon1 I am not familiar with Whitehead's argument, but I am unclear as to how the metaphysical or ontological status of scientific entities has any bearing on the validity of scientific arguments. However, to the usefulness claim, this seems incorrect. Simply because something is useful, it does not imply that it is true (ua-cam.com/video/moeaEMB8S9Q/v-deo.html). Religion may be useful to make people happy, but that does not make it true. Scientific experiments would not be impossible, we could just be before the point in time where the uniformity of nature stops working. Goodman goes farther to demonstrate why you are not justified in claiming cause and effect is real after only inductive demonstrations (ua-cam.com/video/kGE2Ig2dvaE/v-deo.html).
I feel like people just ignore this crap like it's not relevant. Why should we care about the problem of induction when we can't do anything about it?
Because people still believe that science can prove things, while the problem of induction shows that they are wrong.
My perspective is that induction is actually fine, but using finite premises to make a general conclusion (which is kind of an infinity) is illogical. The premises cannot guarantee the conclusion since there's a mismatch. Especially making claims about "...will always imply...", which is identical with the induction about time. I'd say, the inductive argument should be that of X(1),X(2),X(3),...,X(n) implies the C(m:m>/=n) is probably true. E.g, I'm 20 years old, I've known of many instances of the sun rising in the morning (let's say 6000 premises); this implies that the sun will probably rise for the next 6000 days. This kind of dodges the problem of induction for sun rises, since obviously the number of sun rises left is finite (massive) but unarguably finite, therefore your desired result would be a finite conclusion.
It's still feels different from mathematical induction, which is immensely powerful. Especially useful for proofs of the form: prove... for all the natural integers.
The matrix has you
INNNduction
It’s only a theory
Regression analysis
Guess what? God has the answers
I don't like that "sun rising" example
because the sun doesn't rise!!!
it only appears that it rises because we are on earth!
so if a human being that spent some time on earth and is distant from us and is watching earth from some 1000s kms from us
He will be absolutely sure that "the sun will always rise" now and forever only until earth stops rotating.
This example just hinges upon this limited view that we get on earth and would be utterly meaningless from a space frame of reference.
The question should be transformed to be "will earth ever stop rotating" which is more subtle
Enraged scientists lol
Why the heck r u talking that way
Scientists
Ah, not the best audio.
I think this was the first video I published, so it is in need of an update.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene forgive me for being negative. Thank you for making it though. I am trying to understand the problem.
What's wrong with his voice?
Nothing. :) This is one of the first videos I put out so the sound quality is probably not great.
"STAND-ford Encylo-PIDD-ia"
Dudes voice is so arrogant it kills the message.
No, you just don't want to hear what he has to say.
can u please talk normally ffs
Blah blah