Timeline for Constant conjunction of events and probability
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 21:27 | vote | accept | user27343 | ||
| Jan 3, 2019 at 11:07 | comment | added | user9166 | Hume would concede nothing. But his thinking ultimately led to the notion that induction is a red herring. Consider Karl Popper (qv) and the notion that we should just go for systematically maximizing the probability of guessing right, instead of establishing facts at all. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 10:57 | answer | added | Frank Hubeny | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 5:40 | comment | added | user19423 | Yeah, the standard terminology (along with a lengthy discussion) nowadays is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation (For the past thousand+ years, the monsoon season in India has occured several weeks after the flowers bloom in upstate NY. But that doesn't mean blooming flowers cause monsoons.) | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 1:58 | comment | added | user27343 | My question is simply whether or not saying certain events have a higher probability is compatible with the problem of induction. I can't say A causes B, but can I say the occurrence of A means there is a higher probability that B will follow? Based on the answer below, this is still consistent with Hume's argument. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 1:54 | vote | accept | user27343 | ||
| Jan 3, 2019 at 21:27 | |||||
| Jan 3, 2019 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1080614843906969601 | ||
| Jan 2, 2019 at 23:41 | comment | added | Conifold | Why would Hume have to "concede" it? It is his point that we assign the label of causality to conjunctions of events that are particularly common, but that this label has no self-standing referent in reality. In contrast, the traditional belief is that causality (as in natural laws) is objectively grounded in some form. | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 9:20 | answer | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 0:58 | comment | added | user35983 | doesn't 'constant conjunction' make for belief some things are more likely but it can't be "justified" rather than habitually held to? | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 0:45 | history | asked | user27343 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |