Janus

I agree, but I don't think of explanatory inferences as conclusions, but rather as conjectures.

It seems that cyclical repetitions of patterns in nature are observed everywhere. The inference that there is either rigidly or probabilistically dete...

Yes, I think modern physics makes it seem plausible that invariance is not deterministic, but instead probabilistic; yet it seems that invariance on m...

Yes, I do agree that inductive arguments cannot satisfy the criterion of validity. I have also said that any inductive argument can be re-framed as a ...

I already said it is a hypothetical construct. We cannot directly perceive light rays at all. On account of our explanatory theories about what we do ...

That's true; they would not be straight in the vertical plane, because they would curve to remain parallel to the curvature of the Earth. What if we c...

No I can't comprehend your eccentric account of the rules of reason.

I would not put it that way; I would say that we follow inductive reasoning for the practical reason that there is no alternative, and I would also sa...

I would have to first understand what you mean (and you haven't explained it in any way that makes it all clear to me) before I could agree or argue a...

Thoughts and beliefs are already framed in language, and that framing doesn't require thinking about thought and belief. Thinking and believing are no...

I'm sorry to do this, but I have little time at the moment, so I will direct you to my response to Agustino as I think it deals with some aspects of w...

Yes and that is the space of human perception. Spacetime, whatever it is, is not that space; that has been my point all along. Parallel lines in perce...

Yes, but even counting written records of the human past as knowledge relies on the assumption that those written records have not themselves changed;...

"Truth-preservation" is really just consistency, which means not having premises which contradict one another or the conclusion. The validity of deduc...

OK, I think I see where you are coming from now. It may be consistent with "some Ps are Qs" that all Ps are Qs, but not that no Ps are Qs. So, you are...

I don't know...I hadn't formed the opinion that we disagree when it comes to logical entailment. :)

I am left wondering what that even means. Logical entailment is a very precise ("narrow" if you like) concept.

As far as I understand it "intuition" for Kant means something pretty close to what we would call 'perception'. I think space is intuitively obvious t...

It's just not so; and I doubt anyone would agree with you. Have you studied logic at all? In predicate logic ? x: P(x) or (x) P(x) means P(x) is true ...

OK, the problem I have now is with the notion that we experience space. Space is the pure form of intuition, according to Kant, which means that intui...

No, the problem is that you apparently cannot explain what you think logical consequence is. You also need to explain what you think the difference be...

No problem. I guess it was how I perceived your tone that led me to believe that you wanted to disagree but apparently I was mistaken. :)

Evolution is based on the assumption that the invariances of nature have been consistently the same during the past as we find them today. I am pointi...

I'm having trouble making sense of the idea of Euclidean geometry as an "empirical concept", other than it being obviously a conceptual scheme derived...

Kant didn't believe that anything was metaphysically necessary. His whole project involved refuting rationalist metaphysics such as those of Leibniz, ...

Yes, this is an important distinction. There no are truly Euclidean or non-Euclidean objects of the senses, in any case. And perceptual space is defin...

1. Some men are bald Do you seriously believe that this logically entails that all men are bald? Wow, man, if you really believe that then I'm not sur...

The same beliefs can be framed in different languages. Languages cannot be fallible or infallible they are just tools, just know-how. We cannot frame ...

So, apparently you don't have a point of disagreement, then. I think you are misreading Kant, though. I would say there is no "physical space" for Kan...

Your intended point of disagreement is not clear. I haven't suggested that space is a "human construct", in case that was it.

If an argument is such that its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises then it is an deductive argument, end of story. That is how a deducti...

It doesn't follow from the fact that know-how is required to frame beliefs that particular beliefs are reducible to know-how. If you think it does the...

Only if it is framed in deductive form, though and like you I have already presented an example of an inductive argument framed deductively. The induc...

Less certain to you? To me? To everybody? How can you be certain of that except perhaps in your own case? This is still a deflection in any case; so I...

Then you are collapsing the distinction between beliefs and knowledge. Knowing that is reducible to knowing how, but believing is not. Believing that,...

This is not correct. Prior to knowledge of the Sun being the center of the solar system, the Sun was understood to be a wandering God whose path like ...

Syllogistic reasoning is just the form of valid reasoning. The content of any syllogistic reasoning cannot be proven. What is the distinction between ...

I can't see any point of disagreement here; other than the pedantic one concerning the idea of the sun rising.

The mistake you are making consists in thinking that hinge propositions are beliefs. As I explain above they are not; they are know-how. "Proposition"...

I wouldn't put it like that; it will only lead to confusion. "Hinge propositions" are like riding a bike; they constitute know-how, so it is not illeg...

I can't see how this addresses any point relevant to the discussion. You ask what reason we could have for thinking the sun will not rise tomorrow. We...

I'm not familiar with Goodman's grue scenario. In any case I was referring to the past, not the future. I don't see why, if it is based on an understa...

So, in valid arguments that conclude that God exists, his existence is assumed in the premises. This is common to all logical arguments; they simply c...

I'm opposed to substantivistic notions of transcendence on logical and ethical grounds and to the supernatural insofar as it consitutes a substantivis...

Not sure why that exchange you had with PA is attributed to me.

That raises an interesting question I hadn't considered: is validity merely a matter of syntax, or must it also involve semantics? I'll have to think ...

You have reason to believe the Sun will rise tomorrow because you have reasons to believe in the existence of gravity and the more or less invariant m...

But any reasoning that says that the Sun is likely to rise tomorrow is, by definition, inductive reasoning.

As you know, though, false premises do not entail that deductive arguments are invalid, just that are unsound.

I wouldn't put it that way. I would say instead that " an inductive inference is sometimes an inference from a premise of the form "all observed A are...