[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 21 KB, 330x400, hume.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4389495 No.4389495 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/fag here.

How does it feel that the problem of induction makes your entire board irrational and useless?

>> No.4389517

>2012
>using a computer
>claiming science is incorrect

yep, it's this thread again

>> No.4389748

>>4389495

>how does it feel.

Based on the problem of induction, I cannot asses your post.

Therefore, I feel nothing.

>> No.4389759

I don't even know what induction is because I'm a fucking retard, so jokes on you dickweed.

>> No.4389763

>>4389748

Why would you need induction to feel something?

>> No.4389784

>>4389495

Why are you using a picture of my nigga David Hume for this garbage. He would bitch-slap you for bad mouthing science.


Also the problem of induction doesn't undermine science. It is only a problem on certain issues which aren't of much importance, and it isn't impossible to solve.
In science, anything can be wrong, it just requires enough observation and experiment to show why. We cannot get an absolute fact until we know everything, and that isn't theoretically impossible either.

>> No.4389841

>Occam's Razor

>> No.4389935

>>4389784
Very well put, friend. Just because Hume highlighted the problem of induction doesn't automatically make him an antipositivist.

>> No.4389983

>>4389495
Induction is a problem i have solved. Infact the idea of inductionism is actually fallacious. It is infact the opposite of inductionism which is correct.

This is because:

We may only understand that which is evidenced, therefore that which is not evidenced yet should not corrupt the conclusion of what is evidenced.

Simply put. Everything is possible without evidence, so dont give it any thought. Only focus on pinning down real evidence.

The first humans ancestors would have had a similar problem, they would have to decide between preparing on the things they think are constant or simply conserving their resources for an unpredictable moment. Even though they have limited resources and to do so could be wastfull. Ultimatly it was the most logical who won by correctly prediction things such as the seasons or animal migration.

>> No.4389990

but it doesn't

it only shows that analytic proof isn't empirical proof

>> No.4389994

>>4389983
>>4389983
>>4389983

>That's a bit like Occam's Razor.

>> No.4389998

>lolwtf am I reading
>you don't know epistemology litfag, leave

>> No.4390016

>>4389998
>typical /sci/ faggot

Why don't you impart some knowledge instead of being the derisive neckbeard you are, faggot. For all we know, you probably have no clue either.

continue OP

>> No.4390096

>>4389784

>it isn't impossible to solve.
>We cannot get an absolute fact until we know everything

>states its not a problem because (states problem)

There is no reasoning that can tell you how many observations is enough. You are just winging it, and scientists should have the humility to admit this, as opposed to just calling people who bring up the problem "faggots" (or the synonymously titled "philosopher")

>> No.4391359

bumps