Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2013 03:45 AM by I and I.)
Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
Induction is the making generalizations from the observation of particulars, then deduction is then applying that generalization onto other particulars.

Induction is dependent on deduction because first a generalization has to be made to begin a deductive logic process.

This is how religion and science operate. Observation are made particular occurences-generalizations of these observation are made-then these generalizations are made about other particulars. There is a huge problem with this in that at some point in the process of generalizations to a particular claim a leap of faith has to be made on some level because one can't observe every possible thing before making a conclusion. Another problems is that if a wrong generalization is made then the logic still works out in the correct way even if a wrong beginning generalization is made. Example: If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false. This is correct logically and a false statement at the same time. Science seems to go about the same path on many levels. This doesn't mean that science is just as bad as religion, it simply means that science uses the same flawed methods for understanding as scientists do.

Again, philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 05:26 AM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
Considering many posts you've written generalizing "philosophy", "science", and "religion", I find this post of yours ironic.

Are you implying that "philosophy" is free of false conclusions reached through sound logic based on a false premise or premises?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
22-05-2013, 06:07 AM
Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
(22-05-2013 05:26 AM)fat cat Wrote:  Considering many posts you've written generalizing "philosophy", "science", and "religion", I find this post of yours ironic.

Are you implying that "philosophy" is free of false conclusions reached through sound logic based on a false premise or premises?

If you read a philosophy that claims it answers anything then I would suggest regarding it as bullshit. I haven't read any philosopher or philosophy that does that. Philosophy is about asking questions and exposing flaws. Asking correct questions is a true mark of a philosopher, a correct question doesn't just ask something to be answered by current beliefs it asks questions that can severely damage a people's beliefs creating a space for change.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
(22-05-2013 03:37 AM)I and I Wrote:  Again, philosophy shits on science and religion all day every day.

Or a bit more eloquently: "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy" - C.D. Broad

Although Hume made the problem of induction famous, it has been around for going on 2000 years and can be traced back to the Greek and Roman skeptics. Karl Popper's response is that the scientific method does not involve induction at all but instead is the process of attempting to refute existing theories. Its theories do not require justification for induction, they do not require justification at all. It merely seeks to find and fix flaws and errors in existing theories and to conjecture new ones in light of these flaws and errors. But Popper's response is of course itself open to criticism. In the end, the problem of induction, like the problem of other minds, is mainly of academic interest only. It doesn't matter that solipsism cannot be refuted logically, one lives as if it can as a practical matter. It doesn't matter practically if the scientific method cannot be justified by induction, the shit just works bitches.

(22-05-2013 03:37 AM)I and I Wrote:  Example: If the generalization is wrong, the conclusion may be logical, but it may also be untrue. For example, the argument, "All bald men are grandfathers. Harold is bald. Therefore, Harold is a grandfather," is valid logically but it is untrue because the original statement is false. This is correct logically and a false statement at the same time.

More properly, the argument is valid but unsound since a premise is false.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
22-05-2013, 06:35 PM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
lol falsifiability

you fail



again

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 10:19 PM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
(22-05-2013 06:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  If you read a philosophy that claims it answers anything then I would suggest regarding it as bullshit.

Whether philosophies claim to answer questions or not, I approach them the same way - by comparing them to how I understand existence.

(22-05-2013 06:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Philosophy is about asking questions and exposing flaws. Asking correct questions is a true mark of a philosopher, a correct question doesn't just ask something to be answered by current beliefs it asks questions that can severely damage a people's beliefs creating a space for change.

How is it that you repeatedly say things like this and still come to the conclusion that "philosophy shits on science and religion"? Each serves unique functions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fat cat's post
22-05-2013, 10:53 PM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
(22-05-2013 10:19 PM)fat cat Wrote:  
(22-05-2013 06:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  If you read a philosophy that claims it answers anything then I would suggest regarding it as bullshit.

Whether philosophies claim to answer questions or not, I approach them the same way - by comparing them to how I understand existence.

(22-05-2013 06:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  Philosophy is about asking questions and exposing flaws. Asking correct questions is a true mark of a philosopher, a correct question doesn't just ask something to be answered by current beliefs it asks questions that can severely damage a people's beliefs creating a space for change.

How is it that you repeatedly say things like this and still come to the conclusion that "philosophy shits on science and religion"? Each serves unique functions.

Some things I like to say, I also like mexican beer, gladiator movies and cock fights...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 10:55 PM
RE: Hume's problem of inductive and deductive Logic.
(22-05-2013 10:53 PM)I and I Wrote:  ...and cock fights...

I KNEW IT! Banana_zorro

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: