There is no 'fallacy of induction'Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...
-Imp
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
There is no 'fallacy of induction'Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...
-Imp
No it isn't. Mathematics is a tool that scientists use.Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:15 pm It takes all of 30 seconds to debunk scientism's claim that only science provides knowledge. Here goes:
1. Science is dependent on mathematics.
You may well be right. 'Scientism' is a term used by people who oppose scientism rather than support it. And so is rather undefined.-1- wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:48 pmI think science is different from scientism, and from scienticism, and we are all talking about it as if we had already come to a concensus as to what they mean, whereas we have not.A_Seagull wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:03 pm Those who are opposed to scientism appear to have an irrational fear of it... their response is more emotional than rational.
I can only conclude that this is because they fear its power to overturn their long-cherished beliefs.
If scientism is really so bad.. what are its logical flaws? No one has yet presented evidence of any logical flaw.
Science is a human endeavour of enquiry. Scientism -- I have no definition for it. Scienticism is the explanation of the importance of science and moral and emotional support for it. It is replete (in most cases) with dramatizing in terms of human perspective, and/or anthropomorphizing nature and natural forces.
You have to start somewhere. And if you don't start with some sort of circular justification, you have to start with some entirely unjustified assumption. I know which I prefer.Science Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:22 am 1: Circular reasoning is generally considered as a flaky method of grounding a system. Take for example, religious people who claim God exists? How do they know? Some claim because the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is reliable? Because it contains the word of God. How do they know God exists? Because the Bible says so....And on and on they go, which seldom convinces any atheist to believe in a God, because of the circular nature of the argument.
Science rests on the same circular foundation. How does science know something? Because of induction. How do we know we can rely on induction for knowledge? Because induction has worked before. So, science ultimately rests on a claim that induction can be used to justify induction, which is entirely circular.
Induction is the counterpart of deduction, and is in some ways closer to a thing called abduction. Deduction is certain knowledge: the kind one finds in mathematics or formal logic. And some people think science gives us that. However, they're wrong: deduction is only possible in a closed system of self-referential symbols, like maths. Rather, all scientific knowing is inductive, because it's empirical, which means it's dependent on the material world.-1- wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:56 pmWhat IS the problem of induction? I am unfamiliar with that term or expression or idea.Science Fan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:18 pmCare to give us the solution to the problem of induction that haunts science and places it firmly on a circular-reasoning foundation?
Actually, this isn't at all true.
David Hume would disagreeA_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 amThere is no 'fallacy of induction'Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...
-Imp
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
What is induction? I have absolutely no knowledge of the concept. I know I am a philosophical cripple because of it. Can someone here write an explanation in a few words, which will create an 1. informative 2. exhaustive 3. exclusive understanding of "induction"?Science Fan wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:22 am 1: Circular reasoning is generally considered as a flaky method of grounding a system. Take for example, religious people who claim God exists? How do they know? Some claim because the Bible says so. How do they know the Bible is reliable? Because it contains the word of God. How do they know God exists? Because the Bible says so....And on and on they go, which seldom convinces any atheist to believe in a God, because of the circular nature of the argument.
Science rests on the same circular foundation. How does science know something? Because of induction. How do we know we can rely on induction for knowledge? Because induction has worked before. So, science ultimately rests on a claim that induction can be used to justify induction, which is entirely circular.
Would you care to explain that Imp? If you don't, you are just wasting space here. You are merely stating an ad hominem fallacy, namely, the appeal to authority.
It's five messages above this request ( that is, where you first posted it).-1- wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:40 am
What is induction? I have absolutely no knowledge of the concept. I know I am a philosophical cripple because of it. Can someone here write an explanation in a few words, which will create an 1. informative 2. exhaustive 3. exclusive understanding of "induction"?
I don't think Hume would disagree at all. Hume's 'problem of induction' was suggested as a possible problem for those who thought that knowledge of the world was a divine certainty.Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:10 amDavid Hume would disagreeA_Seagull wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:40 amThere is no 'fallacy of induction'Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:10 pm as mentioned above, science suffers from the fallacy of induction...
-Imp
Neither is there any 'problem' of induction.
-Imp