The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options questions only user 19958
4
votes
3answers
It seems to me that the rejection of the validity of induction would cause a deep skepticism in pretty much everything but most prominently in perception. If we can never assume uniformity of nature … , then every inference about the future and the future based on the past is invalid. Thus wouldn't the rejection of induction restrict us to only be able to talk validly about our present phenomenal …
asked Jun 8 '16 by Apodictic Apple Juice
1
vote
0answers
From what I've gathered, reliabilism states that epistemic justification occurs when someone forms a belief via truth-conducive methods. However, doesn't this fall to the problem of induction? Isn't …
asked Aug 29 '17 by Apodictic Apple Juice
3
votes
1answer
I am aware that Kant addressed Hume's skepticism on causality, but I don't see anything in his CPR that solves the problems of induction and uniformity of nature in other contexts like everyday life … , where Hume's question, "will the sun rise tomorrow?" seems to persist. Exactly how does/would Kant solve the problems of induction (particularly uniformity of nature) in non-causal contexts, if he …
asked Jun 11 '16 by Apodictic Apple Juice