That would be the nominalist view; by contrast, a realist would say that a "law of nature" is a real tendency or habit that governs actual things and ...
I already acknowledged that I am swimming upstream on this. I think that "probability" should be reserved for when we are making predictions about pop...
No, again, at that point the correct answer is 1 if it came up heads and 0 if it came up tails. Someone's personal ignorance of the result is irreleva...
Again, my issue is not so much with doing the kinds of calculations that you are describing, it is with calling this "probability" rather than "confid...
I obviously disagree, but I see no point in arguing about it. There is a reason why the scientific method is also called the hypothetico-deductive met...
You are the one who insists on defining retroduction as "inferring from data." I describe it as "formulating an explanatory hypothesis," which is exac...
These were both retroductions (experience to hypothesis), not inductions (hypothesis to experience). Inductive experimentation requires a retroductive...
Einstein hypothesized it (retroduction), he and others worked out some of its experiential consequences (deduction), and then various scientists condu...
Not at all - retroduction (or abduction) is a distinct type of reasoning that provides explanatory conjectures for deductive explication and inductive...
Repeating the exact same argument is not an explanation, and it is certainly not any more convincing. This is not a statement about A at all; it is a ...
As others have been pointing out, the liar statement (A) is not equivalent to B. At the very least, you have to provide an argument for why the two st...
That is not one of the two options in this thought experiment. I was hoping to avoid debates about which (if either) is correct, and instead focus on ...
Turn that around - if it does not hold when there are a trillion things to consider, then it does not hold when there are just two things to consider....
Only in deductive reasoning. Retroductive reasoning is valid when it produces an explanatory hypothesis that is capable of experiential testing. Induc...
I do not consider the observation of a green apple to be relevant to either of these propositions. Bayesian plausibility somehow counts it as evidence...
This is simply what person A calls it when person B ignores something that person A counts as evidence, but person B does not. Is there some objective...
Your premiss here is that anything that increases the Bayesian plausibility of a proposition should count as evidence for its truth. Only someone who ...
My point is that someone's actual confidence or degree of belief is not objectively measurable. Again, most people will never do this calculation, and...
Lots of different people have lots of different ways of counting something as evidence, and then weighing it with other evidence. Very few people have...
I raised no objections to what you said in the post that you linked about the probability of all ten eggs being white before they are produced; or eve...
Yes, although there is more to the frequentist view than what you quoted. As its own Wikipedia article states: Personally, I think that even the "obje...
Not fallacies per se, but rather types of reasoning other than deduction - e.g., retroduction (hypothesizing a plausible antecedent from an observed c...
Objectively or subjectively? :D Yes, but I would prefer not to say that probability has anything to do with it, since we are clearly talking about one...
, , As I have stated repeatedly, probability does not apply to individual cases - only to populations (P) and samples randomly taken therefrom (S). Pr...
Or as Peirce succinctly put it, "A particular proposition asserts the existence of something of a given description. A universal proposition merely as...
The calculation is fine as far as it goes; the interpretation is the problem. The last marble in the bag is either black (p=1) or non-black (p=0), we ...
You did not stipulate any knowledge of how the marbles got into the bag. All we knew was that the first 16 marbles that we took out were black. This i...
Fair enough, but what you are really saying then is that nobody in your house right now is American. No, but I can see why you misunderstood me. The u...
I think you are, unless you qualify it somehow. You are saying that anything taller than 9 feet cannot (ever) be human. Then this is a universal propo...
I am fine with this common-sense approach for everyday living, especially if we substitute "one is confident" for "it is probable." What bothers me is...
Not really. Why would you think that? The contents (or lack thereof) of the first 16 pockets have no bearing whatsoever on the contents (or lack there...
One more point - you also have to stipulate that this was true when the observations occurred. Even then, it is only strictly true if those observatio...
The difference is that you actually observed all of your pockets. The OP is claiming that a single observation provides evidential support for a unive...
This is a deductive fallacy, but it is a textbook case of retroductive (or abductive) reasoning. "There's a lion" is a hypothesis, a plausible explana...
Why do you keep addressing this to me? My statement that you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with universal propositions. Observation of a green a...
You used universal propositions, not singular propositions, in the OP. Now you are claiming that the two propositions of interest are both singular - ...
Please read what you quoted from me again. I said that the observation of a green apple only supports - in fact, proves - the particular proposition t...
You were quoting someone else here, but it expresses precisely why I take exception to using the term "probability" in this way, rather than "confiden...
Indeed - when working with random samples, not individual cases. Returning to the deck of cards, if we anticipate drawing one from a truly random loca...
To clarify, the model (often called a "world") in which these two propositions are consistent is one in which ravens do not exist; hence X is not a ra...
Truth is not a matter of probability. It is either true (p=1) or false (p=0) that if something is not black then it is not a raven. The observation of...
No, I am just taking exception to using the term "probability" for subjective confidence or degree of belief - as did Peirce, if I remember right. As ...
Now you are losing track of the quantifiers. Given the observation of a green apple, the probability that some non-black thing is a non-raven is 1. It...
If by "vagueness and propensity" you mean what Peirce called 1ns and 3ns, then yes, that is the working hypothesis that I have currently adopted and c...
I have (repeatedly) explained the error in this reasoning - successful observations have no effect whatsoever on the (objective) probability of the st...
Sigh, I thought that we had made a breakthrough. Your math fails right here: Observation has no effect whatsoever on the probability of the claim bein...
My objection was that probability is not the same thing as epistemic uncertainty. At last! If we observe a green apple, then I suppose we can be very,...
Comments