Banno

'tis not. When you bring your white swans down here they stay white. I saw one in a zoo.

It's that that you comment on form my post? It was how he kept looking to the ceiling.

Neat. The very idea of doubting everything is absurd, since it involves doubting the very language needed to frame the doubt. Doubt is overrated. We n...

Explicitly wrong.

But there is no need to reason to the conclusion that the sun will come up tomorrow. What would need reason is if the sun were not to come up tomorrow...

SO you have re-framed induction as a deduction with a false premise.

This is where I came in... If you like, my objection is that inventing induction as a reason for being confident that the sun will rise tomorrow is al...

Do I have to point out that the second premise is false?

I can live with that, if you prefer. Just so long as we drop the pretence of its being valid. To be sure, if you can indeed reframe inductive reasonin...

Here's the first paragraph form the Shorter Rutledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, inductive inference. Now, does anyone here think that this is wrong? ...

What? Where is my error?

Magnus, I've shown repeatedly that in an induction the conclusion does not follow from true premises. It's not just my say so. Cheers.

Sorry - are you saying induction must be valid? Cool. Why? Do you think science would fail without induction? I think not. Again, my point is a small ...

Sure; but this is not the same as being invalid in the first place. Induction is just invalid.

Things have reached a pretty pass when Apo relies on Wiki.

Do you think scientific method must be algorithmic? I suspect that is a bit of this underpinning the defence of inductivism. An algorithmic science wo...

I don't object to Bayesian inference. But that's not induction.

No. It is not the case that because every swan seen by white fellas was white, they will never see a black swan in the future. https://static.seekinga...

I watched quite a bit of the film somewhat horrified. One of the arguments presented was that the fragmented partisans in identity politics cannot tal...

Just an admission that your argument at that stage carried some weight. I went into how, here.

Cool. I think Popper's account of scientific method wrong, too. But Popper being wrong does not make induction right.

One of the things that has been troubling me is the passionate adherence to induction being displayed here. I couldn't fathom it. It is so apparent th...

Are you seriously suggesting that Popper supported induction?

Here's a funny thing. In deductive logic, if the premise is true, and the argument valid, then the conclusion will be true. That's what it is to be va...

It's not valid because it contains two unrelated relations - "...in the past..." and "...in the future..."; and so the conclusion doe snot follow from...

No, it is not valid.

How so?

Well, no, thy can't be valid. Validity happens only with deductive arguments. Ascribing validity to inductive arguments is at best metaphorical, and m...

SO what more is there to the content of a belief than subject and statement?

Yeah. Except that a belief is a description.

Yes, he was. My target in that post was those who might be tempted to think he was not.

Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery:

The best argument against my view - implicit in some things that have been said here, but one that ought be set out in detail - is that my account lea...

"Jack has a belief"cannot be true if beliefs are our descriptions of Jack's behaviour, since our descriptions are not Jack's descriptions. "Jack has a...

So "Jack has a red ball" must be false because Jack cannot see red?

There's two things you can do with T-sentence. If you know that the subject sentence on the left and on the right are the same, you can use it as a de...

Introducing "...is the case" adds nothing, but gives the illusion of explanation. In particular it gives an unwanted air of correspondence to Tarski's...

Too simple.

It really doesn't. Jack's belief is the compliment of his actions and his desires. You're just indulging in reification.

:o And so we can continue. Black holes are closed loops, iterating to infinity.

Good stuff. Here's how I would phrase the same solution, in a somewhat simpler fashion. 1. The number of my beliefs that would have to be wrong for th...

Woe. Suddenly we are miles apart. There's that word necessarily. I use the possible worlds interpretation to make sense of modal logic; if I recall co...

Popper tried his best to dispose of induction and replace it with deduction in the form of falsification. He understood its illegitimacy. Abduction is...

I've had reason to consider this recently. Not surprisingly, I suppose, given my predilection for meaning as use, I think we have to take philosophers...

Of course. As I said, they pretend to be a different sort of logic. It's the pretence that is problematic. "Science works by induction" "Ah! well, tha...

It is obvious that the programers did not expect us to look at things on the quantum level, and so did not bother to code it well enough to distinguis...

(Phew) worried me for a bit.

How's that? I think the T-schema about as close to a definition of "...is true..." as we can get. Don't you go getting me all worked up now...

8-) It's wonderful that logic throws up these little puzzles. That it's not as crystal-clean as some pretend.

Of course it is Jack's belief. If not Jack's then whose? That he can't say it doesn't imply that it is not his. He can't say "that's my tooth" either....