6
Pointing out that induction is necessary for claims about the world doesn't actually resolve the problem of induction. At best, it shifts the problem from purely formal matter of reasoning to a more embodied matter of cognition.
The problem of induction is a problem of forecasting. We have a stream of experiences that we have lived through encoded in memory....
4
The fact that we make inferences from sense experience is not the problem of induction as presented by David Hume. The problem of induction is to find a reason for those readily made inferences.
Leah Henderson describes the problem of induction as follows:
Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive ...
3
Whenever we make some claim about the world, the phenomena, whatever you want to call it, we necessarily draw from our immediate and past experience, i.e. we engage in any act of induction in the most general sense. That's why there is no problem of induction, its necessary to any knowledge in the first place.
If you define induction as "absolutely any ...
2
For some, knowledge is "justified, true belief". Here is how Wikipedia describes it:
Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment, 'justified' standing in contrast to 'revealed'. There have been attempts to trace it back to Plato and his dialogues.
By this definition we would not know something unless ...
2
This is not a definitive answer, but too long for a comment. The OP quote has a footnote listing the "proponents (and most opponents) of the knowledge argument" who take propositional knowledge "in a broader sense". Among the references are Lycan, who is classified by SEP under The New Knowledge/Old Fact View on Mary. According to this view, "what it is for ...
1
...there is no problem of induction, it's necessary to any knowledge
in the first place.
There is a difference between making one observation of one event, and drawing a generalization after observing a series of similar events. The first (one event) requires an understanding of human perception, but not of induction. In the second (generalization), ...
1
@helios- In your question you make the following statement and it Represents an assumption whose merits are typically not questioned. That's why there is no problem of induction, it's necessary to any knowledge in the first place What follows is a response to that assertion, about induction being 'necessary to any knowledge'.
In this Excerpt HF Hallett ...
1
There's a truism in philosophy that I like to trot out every once in a while: solipsism implies relativism. The only way we can validate the 'truth' or 'falsehood' of our understandings and beliefs is through our experience of the external world, and in particular our experience of other beings in the external world. I can only validate the statement "I see ...
1
In epistemology, the traditional definition of knowledge is :
True, Justified, Belief
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
As per your reasoning, you said :
Therefore it seems reasonable to me to claim that the only "truth"
people are capable of knowing is the "truth" that they assume to be
true in their reasoning. Also all ...
1
The way to falsify an hypothesis in mathematics is to provide a counterexample.
One way to characterize an hypothesis as "good" is if there exists an effective method for finding a counterexample that could be used to falsify the hypothesis. Here are the criteria for an effective method from Wikipedia:
A method is formally called effective for a class ...
1
It is reasonable to point out that one cannot take a position on this question until one has decided what 'belief' means. A pragmatic definition of a belief is that one believes a proposition if one acts as though it were true, or is aware of a violation when one fails to do so (experiencing surprise, fear or confusion.)
In that case, then, yes, one can ...
1
Either the speed of light is finite or it isn't.
Once you have established that it is impossible that the speed of light be infinite, you can eliminate this impossibility. And once you have eliminated this impossibility, then what remains is that the speed of light is finite. Full marks for Doyle!
So, I guess, one condition, surely, is that we be logical ...
1
One way of approaching this question is by noting the variety of mental states that can be included in 'belief':
Evidenced belief
I believe that Queen Victoria died in 1901. (I am convinced)
I believe that Trump will win in 2020. (I believe 60: 40 that Trump will win: I ascribe this order of probability to it.)
I believe that the burglar crossed the lawn ...
1
There are a lot of good answers here already. I want to expand on them a bit.
The simple answer to the question is that not all true or false answers give us the same amount of information, and that there are certain false answers that are closer to the truth than other false answers.
A quick example of this is to say "I am driving at 45mph."
Well if I am ...
1
Simulation Hypothesis is already part of science. Quantum mechanics scientists produced a paper in 2017 to test the double slit experiment in a new way specifically to try to prove or disprove Simulation Hypothesis.
Here is CalTech's paper about the test: http://users.cms.caltech.edu/~owhadi/index_htm_files/IJQF2017.pdf
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
