New answers tagged

2

Your setup and experiment are analogous to the following more general scenario: Suppose you want to provide evidence for the claim that all As are Bs. To do so, you design an experiment that only ever looks at Bs, and willfully ignores anything that isn't a B. If you find a B that isn't an A, no big deal; this doesn't contradict your hypothesis that all As ...


0

What is the justification for the claim that observing something that is neither a raven nor black increases the likelihood that all ravens are black? This isn't a formal answer, but it might help understand the reasoning behind the apparent paradox. Suppose you have a box that contains N birds, R of which are ravens, and B of which are black. You don't ...


0

The question is given a positive, odd integer n can we check two things n is a raven number based on some effective method run by a machine n + 1 is a black number based on another effective method run by a machine and then claim, based on empirical testing of positive, odd integers up to 10 decimal digits, that the following is true for every positive, ...


1

@speakpidgeon- Will add to the comments section in order to respond to your question concerning 'first principles'. But first, you asked to see what Spinoza has to say about knowledge, and so here are two Notes to Proposition XL Ethics Part 2- On the Nature and Origin of the Mind. "Nevertheless, in order not to omit anything necessary to be known, I will ...


1

The problem of induction as a basis for knowledge is that new facts we discover may, and very often do, contradict our past inductive inferences. We are thereby forcibly led to accept, again and again and again, that we didn't know what we thought, and often vehemently asserted, that we knew. Thus, we can only inductively infer that we don't really know ...


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), ...


2

@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 ...


Top 50 recent answers are included