Ricardo Bevilaqualess info
|visits||member for||6 months|
|seen||1 hour ago|
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who
would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.
If I had one hour to save the world, I would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and only five minutes finding the solution.
"Reasons without reliability seem empty and reliability without reasons seems blind".
The problem of induction is a problem of which action to take, or which wager to accept. The injunction is to act so as to maximize expected utility of rendering knowledge possible. The induction will succeed if any alternative suceed, and not suceed if any alternative not suceed. If any rule will lead to positing the correct knowledge, the inductive rule will do this, and it is simplest rule that is successful. The Occam's rule applies to minimize the number of possible correction of hypothesis, given different possible future observations.That all inductive inferences will be justified, or be necessarily true, is false, and in any case synthetic knowledge certainty is a necessary supposition.
Atheists just believe in one fewer god than Christian believers. When believers understand why they refuse all the other possible gods, they will understand why atheists reject the myth of them too. A religion rejects other religions precisely because they are faith-based, there is no evidence for them. One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary.
Science isn't a progress toward a final truth. Many past theories were not approximately true or truthlike. Ptolemy's geocentric theory was rejected in the Copernican revolution, not retained in the form “approximately Ptolemy”. Steps from Ptolemy to Copernicus or from Newton to Einstein are not only matters of improved precision but involve changes in theoretical postulates and laws. There is no theory-independent way to reconstruct phrases like "really there", each theory has its own ontology. Convergence to the truth scientific progress seems to be impossible, if ontologies change with theories observations, and ontologies are relative to theories. Science is progressive only on values other than the truth, such as simplicity, predictive accuracy, comprehensiveness, and requirements for consistency.
Philosophy of mind is continuous with natural science. This implies that there is no difference in their standards of evidence. Cognitive science may be viewed as a kind of naturalized philosophy of mind.The naturalistic approach to philosophy does not imply that there are no philosophical questions, but that the status of the answers is empirical rather than a priori. By contrast, the traditional philosophical theses are in part a priori. They are distinctively philosophical standards and they need not be judged by the evidence drawn from scientific experiments
169 Votes Cast
|all time||by type||month|