I think induction thinking is more of an evolutionary adaptation that allowed certain organisms to think in a way to create models of their external world via their sensory systems in order for them to 'problem solve' complex situations to survive. This caused humans to believe such thinking is 'objective', given that it has been installed in us instinctively
YES! You’re completely correct. Love the way you worded this. I really should have emphasized this more in my video, but I was in a bit of a rush towards the end trying to get the video out. If I can figure out how to pin your comment, I’ll go ahead and do that when I get home (currently in the car)!! Thanks for your input, Yeeeeeeet! Thanks for still staying subscribed even though I haven’t posted in a while. I recognized you from comments on some of my other videos :). Hope all is well with you.
@@philosophermit8215 Lool dont worry. Recently I was interested in western philosophy and the idea of logical thinking, and eastern philosophy with the idea of knowing yourself i.e. the way we feel and think. I like the idea of linking them with evolutionary psychology to really truly understand why we think and feel in a certain way, and if such thinking and feeling a certain emotion has any flaws. And also how has society shaped the way we think as well and does it work with our current primitive brain that evolved to try to solve. Anyways am going off tangent here keep up the with good work. And yeah I used to be that cow in my profile pic. I click straight away if I see a philosophical-related on my subscription list lol
started taking a philosophy class for the first time and this channel is gold. Saved me from reading 60 pages on induction that was worded in a confusing manner
I really enjoyed this video. In all my time studying philosophy I have never heard Hume explained so succinctly and accurately. I hope you continue to make videos!
At this point I've probably been putting out one video per year hahaha, but I do hope to continue making videos on this channel at some point. Life's been a little wild lately, but this comment really encouraged me to try and start this channel back up again. Thank you so, so much! :-)
I loved your video. Have always admired Humes skepticism, and thought of an extension to this argument where even given a stable universe and the idea of future resembling the past those components contained within resemblance can not all be understood or anticipated. The sun always rising is clear and easy to understand, however the rate of slowing and the inherent change to slowing or accelerating or by definition change, present a whole different set of problems, within this framework.
This video is so helpful, I currently have an essay due tomorrow and my lecturer stipulated that we clearly must explain humes problem of induction. I was struggling to fork the correct words, but this helped :) thank you
I'm really impressed with both the editing quality and overall production level you put into the video, great job! I think generally, a lot of reasoning can boil down to intuitiveness, which is really just a fancy word for pattern recognition and ascription. Like another commentor stated, it has legitimate evolutionary usage in keeping things generally alive, but is largely unfounded. To question the immutability of natural law and constants is pretty foundational to science. We have quantum mechanics being observed where these constants break down and are no longer true, and in psychology you have the nature v. Nurture argument which has now been rendered a bit simpler with our understanding of epigenetics. Question your reality, it's how we make strides as humanity!
Excellent video! I'm really amazed by the scenes and editing as well as the knowledge of what you're saying of course :D Also! Welcome back, I saw this video after checking your past videos and saw the recent upload, Im gonna sub, I like this content. I haven't read a lot on philosophy but so far for the year I believe I read at least 1 or 2 books on philosophy
Thank you so much, Jospeh! This honestly means the world. I was a bit nervous to post this video, seeing as it's been a while since I have posted a video or really given any kind of lecture. So glad you enjoyed it!
Did I just watch a video of myself giving a lecture on Hume’s problem of induction to myself? Yes, indeed, I think I did. Lol. Excellent job, my recently discovered doppelgänger 👍👌😂😁
Haha this is so crazy!! You actually have two doppelgängers then because I have an identical twin sister!!! Hahaha you must be our long-lost triplet 😝! Thank you for watching, I’m so glad you enjoyed.
Philosophermit Wow, there’s three of us? This day just keeps getting better! And absolutely! I actually just recently discovered your channel, and you have some great content. Also, your editing was very good. I found the subtitles to be very helpful. I also, see you have some familiar philosophical/intellectual faces in the comments with the likes of @King Crocoduck and @Andrew T, so I know I must be in the right place. I’ll be sure to subscribe! 💖🙏🏼
Helloooo! Where you've been? Welcome back :) I discovered your channel a couple of weeks ago and I noticed the last video was already 2 years old. I subscribed anyway and... voilaaa! A new video is here :) I'll watch it in the morning. Going to bed now.
Hi there, Kyle! Thank you so much for watching and subscribing :). Yes, it’s been a pretty long time since my last video! The reason I haven’t uploaded in two years is just because there’s been a lot of things that have happened in my personal life that have prevented me from being able to make videos for this channel. Luckily, I have a lot more free time now and so I am hoping to make more videos ASAP!! I’m so glad you stuck around even though I haven’t uploaded in so long. Also, It’s been a while since I have made a video, so please excuse my rusty lecture-giving skills 😛. I hope you enjoy it though! Let me know what you think!!
You are just awesome, this video is well made and packed with on-point information! I'm on my way to binge watching your videos:) Keep up the good work!
Nicely done. I like the music and the images you use. I think you could have defined the two types of reasoning Hume gives, demonstrative and moral reasoning. But, you explained it in a compelling way that made it interesting. You are also very pretty :)
It seems a lot of our reasoning is induction. I'm not leaning on skepticism of reality or truth, but rather thinking about the things we say and do and our bases for them. It seems to me there is a spectrum of "likelihood" upon which we grade our inductions and those of others. In my life, the further I got from absolutes and the closer I got to accepting that induction exists and is widely used, the calmer I became and the world seemed. :)
Objects you showed fall towards he ground not to the ground. Some land in a cup or a glass. But your video is very good. Your examples are very clear, coherent and succinct. Congratulations.
My justification for using inductive reasoning is that it's all I know how to do. Since it's worked so well for my entire life I never learned to get along in any other environment. If it stops working then I'm in serious trouble whether I use it or not, so I should continue to use it in case it keeps working.
It has never been clear to me why people treat inductive reasoning as though it were uniquely unfounded. Deductive and abductive reasoning are similarly foundationless, with the former operating entirely on the basis of arbitrary axioms, and the latter formally affirming the consequent.
King Crocoduck My line of thought is similar. It seems that those who treat inductive reasoning as it is uniquely unfounded tend to have some sort of agenda to push. For instance, creationists and Christian Apologists often bring this up as if it were some kind of "gotcha" point, but in reality other forms of reason are foundation less, as you stated.
Deductive reasoning unlike inductive reasoning is not questioned on the basis of the method of reasoning but on the premises contained in the deductions.
Well done video and great job illustrating the point. Similarly, if I were to induce that Isa's dog would disappear every time she said "natural thing that we do" (@ 5:02), it wouldn't be rational- but it would be a good tool to use when watching this video. Keep the videos coming!
Hello. Nice video ! And we’ll explained ! What about the variables that influences the conclusion of an experiment. Example of the apple : The apple keep on falling because of the way it is placed, for instance it is more inclined towards the ground, therefore the conclusion will be if I keep on placing the apple in a certain angle it will always fall but if I place it in a another angle it will never fall. Can we simply ignore those multiple variables that influences the outcome of an experiment ?
Do we need to test an observation repeatedly to infer a rule? I stuck a knitting needle into a power outlet as a young child. Once was enough to infer causality!
Thank you for the video. I did have a question. Is induction the process of nature, or is it merely a method of inference? I have heard people talk about induction as if it was an abstract object but that doesn’t seem correct Thank you again for the video
Andrew T Wow, King Crocoduck and Andrew T are in the comments? Is this some sort of intellectual secret gathering I stumbled upon? I feel honored. 🙏🏼🙏🏼😂
Hi there! I’m so glad you enjoyed my video. It’s been a while since I have uploaded, so I was a bit nervous to see what people would think of the content. Thank you so much for the wonderful comments :)!
@@readandrap283 Haha. I am no where near the popularity of someone like King Crocoduck, but I appreciate the compliment. I just happen to know a few popular science and philosophy you-tubers lol.
@@philosophermit8215 I was definitely impressed with the quality of the videos. It's very rare to see such quality from smaller channels. If you don't mind me asking, do you teach philosophy, or did you major in some philosophy related field? You seem to have a very good understanding of the field, in general. You remind me of Cosmic Skeptic in many ways. I'll try to spread the word on your channel. I think your channel has quite a lot of potential for the future. Content like this often doesn't go unnoticed for long. Keep up the good work.
Hi!!! Long time no speak 😝. Thank you so much for sticking around! Yes, I edited the video myself. I did not film the footage though. I used a stock footage program called ArtGrid. Kinda pricey, but the footage is great!
@@philosophermit8215 Yes, it's been a long time. I was wondering what you were up to:D Are you studying philosophy as a major now, or is it just a hobby? Aha, good to know. Thanks for the info.
I actually graduated with my bachelors in Philosophy last year. I am currently preparing for the GRE (probably taking it in June or July), and I should be applying to graduate school sometime this fall! :)
@@philosophermit8215 That's excellent! I hope you'd continue with the videos here. And thanks for replying:) By the way, just added you on Instagram; @johannesabsurdus is me.
Although inductive reasoning may be inaccurate, it’s the price we pay for having organized thoughts that are not all over the place…imagine always questioning whether an object will fall or not every time you open your hand
Hi Mina, no I have not! I'm sorry about that. I don't usually upload my video scripts anywhere, but maybe that is a possibility for future videos. Hope you enjoyed the video!
Sorry for the extremely late reply! I used an editing system called Filmora for this, they have a lot of different animation features that helped me create the intro. Thanks for the compliment!! :-)
HEY there, It's been forever!!! How have you been? I hope all has been well :-). I'm so glad I finally got a new video out. Hoping to get back into the swing of things here soon. I feel so rusty!
In geology, we face this problem all the time: Is the present the key to the past? ...and careers have been built or destroyed by this assumption. But that’s what science is about - gathering more examples, doing the tests, seeing what happens...to me, induction is a tool for testing hypotheses, not a prescriptive dogma.
@@prtauvers Do you know without assumption and with absolute certainty that you will always land on Mars safely? If not, then you have no knowledge. Just an assumption.
If the universe becomes unstable, or non uniform, the habit of being inductive about the future will become less of a habit? That seems to be a conclusion if we follow hume's line of logic. You could start adding provisos or caveats to every statement about the future ,e.g. " if the past has any bearing on the future then the sun should rise tomorrow, but it won't necessarily rise by logical necessity". If you take this Hume stuff too literally and made an effort not to exercise the 'habit' of induction, let's say as a philosophical experiment, you would have to live in a constant state of bewilderment or surprise since the future would be completely unpredictable.
well, science is certainly not knowledge. Science is based on 'animal' faith, instinct and belief. Science is really a dead end when it comes to knowledge; science is full of assumptions and will never get us to certainty.
Who cares if A does not follow B all the time or only in ergodic systems? we would simply make a construct to rationalize the new truth? - in fact that may be why we have paradoxes! - the wrong or inaccurate construct will lead to a paradox.
Approaching induction from a basis of scientific foundation, such as regarding gravity, laws of thermodynamics, physical laws of the universe, you can say yes, it makes sense to use inductive reasoning. It is literally why we have computers. You cannot use inductive reasoning for systems that are too complex to accurately measure with any degree of certainty, like another human being. You cannot assume Jim will be nice tomorrow because he was nice all week, you can only predict that it will be maybe likely, but you cannot say with certainty that it will be so because Jim is an amalgamation of several thousands of systems that all have variables external and internal. You inductively know a thing will fall, but you cannot inductively know that Jim will throw a ball back to you a 12th time. It is impossible. Hume's argument is absolutely and utterly pointless to assume anything other than what we can observe and reason with our senses as a collective species. We are not God, we cannot play God. Yes, the Earth can spontaneously explode tomorrow, but that does not change the fact that neither you nor I could stop it, and even more so, that we could even prove such a thing could happen, when all of the evidence we have prior points to being- "No, the Earth is likely not going to explode tomorrow." All that we have is our senses and evidence.
the argument isn't supposed to convince you to abandon inductive reasoning, merely to raise your skepticism, and not claim it to be necessary or absolutely certain.
If it is the case that the biblical worldview is true, there is an all powerful Creator God Who implements and imposes these laws onto His creation, and then reveals it to be the case. We can put the biblical worldview on one side of the demarcation line, and the non-biblical worldview on the other.
I think induction thinking is more of an evolutionary adaptation that allowed certain organisms to think in a way to create models of their external world via their sensory systems in order for them to 'problem solve' complex situations to survive. This caused humans to believe such thinking is 'objective', given that it has been installed in us instinctively
YES! You’re completely correct. Love the way you worded this. I really should have emphasized this more in my video, but I was in a bit of a rush towards the end trying to get the video out. If I can figure out how to pin your comment, I’ll go ahead and do that when I get home (currently in the car)!! Thanks for your input, Yeeeeeeet! Thanks for still staying subscribed even though I haven’t posted in a while. I recognized you from comments on some of my other videos :). Hope all is well with you.
Ok I figured it out lol! 😂 Guess I didn’t need to be on my laptop to pin the comment.
@@philosophermit8215
Lool dont worry. Recently I was interested in western philosophy and the idea of logical thinking, and eastern philosophy with the idea of knowing yourself i.e. the way we feel and think. I like the idea of linking them with evolutionary psychology to really truly understand why we think and feel in a certain way, and if such thinking and feeling a certain emotion has any flaws. And also how has society shaped the way we think as well and does it work with our current primitive brain that evolved to try to solve. Anyways am going off tangent here keep up the with good work. And yeah I used to be that cow in my profile pic. I click straight away if I see a philosophical-related on my subscription list lol
*solve --> survive
Tanks
started taking a philosophy class for the first time and this channel is gold. Saved me from reading 60 pages on induction that was worded in a confusing manner
Honestly, I was trying to figure Hume out on this. This video is the single best video explaining Hume on Induction.
Very clear explanation on a very very important issue that roused Immanuel Kant from his dogmatic slumber. Nicely done, much appreciated.
I really enjoyed this video. In all my time studying philosophy I have never heard Hume explained so succinctly and accurately. I hope you continue to make videos!
At this point I've probably been putting out one video per year hahaha, but I do hope to continue making videos on this channel at some point. Life's been a little wild lately, but this comment really encouraged me to try and start this channel back up again. Thank you so, so much! :-)
@@philosophermit8215 Im glad to have encouraged! I'll keep my eyes peeled for my videos :) (even if its yearly)
This five minute video saved me HOURS of reading a bunch of boring, confusing material. Thank you!!!
You're welcome :-)!
I loved your video. Have always admired Humes skepticism, and thought of an extension to this argument where even given a stable universe and the idea of future resembling the past those components contained within resemblance can not all be understood or anticipated. The sun always rising is clear and easy to understand, however the rate of slowing and the inherent change to slowing or accelerating or by definition change, present a whole different set of problems, within this framework.
This video is so helpful, I currently have an essay due tomorrow and my lecturer stipulated that we clearly must explain humes problem of induction. I was struggling to fork the correct words, but this helped :) thank you
I'm really impressed with both the editing quality and overall production level you put into the video, great job! I think generally, a lot of reasoning can boil down to intuitiveness, which is really just a fancy word for pattern recognition and ascription. Like another commentor stated, it has legitimate evolutionary usage in keeping things generally alive, but is largely unfounded. To question the immutability of natural law and constants is pretty foundational to science. We have quantum mechanics being observed where these constants break down and are no longer true, and in psychology you have the nature v. Nurture argument which has now been rendered a bit simpler with our understanding of epigenetics. Question your reality, it's how we make strides as humanity!
Excellent video! I'm really amazed by the scenes and editing as well as the knowledge of what you're saying of course :D
Also! Welcome back, I saw this video after checking your past videos and saw the recent upload, Im gonna sub, I like this content. I haven't read a lot on philosophy but so far for the year I believe I read at least 1 or 2 books on philosophy
Thank you so much, Jospeh! This honestly means the world. I was a bit nervous to post this video, seeing as it's been a while since I have posted a video or really given any kind of lecture. So glad you enjoyed it!
Did I just watch a video of myself giving a lecture on Hume’s problem of induction to myself? Yes, indeed, I think I did. Lol. Excellent job, my recently discovered doppelgänger 👍👌😂😁
Haha this is so crazy!! You actually have two doppelgängers then because I have an identical twin sister!!! Hahaha you must be our long-lost triplet 😝! Thank you for watching, I’m so glad you enjoyed.
Philosophermit Wow, there’s three of us? This day just keeps getting better! And absolutely! I actually just recently discovered your channel, and you have some great content. Also, your editing was very good. I found the subtitles to be very helpful. I also, see you have some familiar philosophical/intellectual faces in the comments with the likes of @King Crocoduck and @Andrew T, so I know I must be in the right place. I’ll be sure to subscribe! 💖🙏🏼
So glad the subtitles helped! I added them in because subtitles often help me when I’m watching videos too. Thank you for subscribing! 😊
Helloooo! Where you've been? Welcome back :)
I discovered your channel a couple of weeks ago and I noticed the last video was already 2 years old. I subscribed anyway and... voilaaa! A new video is here :) I'll watch it in the morning. Going to bed now.
Hi there, Kyle! Thank you so much for watching and subscribing :).
Yes, it’s been a pretty long time since my last video! The reason I haven’t uploaded in two years is just because there’s been a lot of things that have happened in my personal life that have prevented me from being able to make videos for this channel. Luckily, I have a lot more free time now and so I am hoping to make more videos ASAP!! I’m so glad you stuck around even though I haven’t uploaded in so long. Also, It’s been a while since I have made a video, so please excuse my rusty lecture-giving skills 😛.
I hope you enjoy it though! Let me know what you think!!
You are just awesome, this video is well made and packed with on-point information! I'm on my way to binge watching your videos:) Keep up the good work!
Nicely done. I like the music and the images you use. I think you could have defined the two types of reasoning Hume gives, demonstrative and moral reasoning. But, you explained it in a compelling way that made it interesting. You are also very pretty :)
Thank you so much, Dan! Glad you enjoyed the video :-)!
It seems a lot of our reasoning is induction. I'm not leaning on skepticism of reality or truth, but rather thinking about the things we say and do and our bases for them. It seems to me there is a spectrum of "likelihood" upon which we grade our inductions and those of others. In my life, the further I got from absolutes and the closer I got to accepting that induction exists and is widely used, the calmer I became and the world seemed. :)
Objects you showed fall towards he ground not to the ground. Some land in a cup or a glass. But your video is very good. Your examples are very clear, coherent and succinct. Congratulations.
brilliant explanation mam....please continue such initiatve....
Umderstanding this is quite hard but your explanation helped me come to an understanding.
My justification for using inductive reasoning is that it's all I know how to do. Since it's worked so well for my entire life I never learned to get along in any other environment. If it stops working then I'm in serious trouble whether I use it or not, so I should continue to use it in case it keeps working.
It has never been clear to me why people treat inductive reasoning as though it were uniquely unfounded. Deductive and abductive reasoning are similarly foundationless, with the former operating entirely on the basis of arbitrary axioms, and the latter formally affirming the consequent.
That's an incredibly interesting point there! I think you're totally right. I'd love to dig deeper into those topics for sure.
King Crocoduck My line of thought is similar. It seems that those who treat inductive reasoning as it is uniquely unfounded tend to have some sort of agenda to push. For instance, creationists and Christian Apologists often bring this up as if it were some kind of "gotcha" point, but in reality other forms of reason are foundation less, as you stated.
Arbitrary axioms? You have failed to substantiate that assertion.
Deductive reasoning unlike inductive reasoning is not questioned on the basis of the method of reasoning but on the premises contained in the deductions.
That's bs. Abduction isn't "affirming the consequent"
this is a good production, keep it up!
Thanks, you explained it in a simple way yet so informative!
Quick, correct, and concise. Thank you lots!!
can you solve the problem of induction (suggestion idea for video) - its one of the most interesting problems in philosophy.
Well done video and great job illustrating the point. Similarly, if I were to induce that Isa's dog would disappear every time she said "natural thing that we do" (@ 5:02), it wouldn't be rational- but it would be a good tool to use when watching this video.
Keep the videos coming!
you have actually saved me so much stress! thank you :)
Amazingly explained and well edited video.
Thank you so much! Will try my best to keep producing content like this 😊
Finally someone who can explain it... Thank you.
Your channel is truly a gem 💎 Thanks for this chapter.
Hello. Nice video ! And we’ll explained !
What about the variables that influences the conclusion of an experiment.
Example of the apple :
The apple keep on falling because of the way it is placed, for instance it is more inclined towards the ground, therefore the conclusion will be if I keep on placing the apple in a certain angle it will always fall but if I place it in a another angle it will never fall.
Can we simply ignore those multiple variables that influences the outcome of an experiment ?
Please upload more videos like this .it will be helpful to people like me
My God, you are a queen.
Thank you!!!! :D
Great video. Currently reading the foundations of scientific inference by W.C. Salmon. This video was useful. Subscribed.
I am so happy to hear that you found my video useful!!
Well explained..loved this concept
I like that you make video once a year
thanks, man. I try
Do we need to test an observation repeatedly to infer a rule? I stuck a knitting needle into a power outlet as a young child. Once was enough to infer causality!
Thank you for such a clear explanation.😊
Love from India 🇮🇳
Thank you for the video. I did have a question. Is induction the process of nature, or is it merely a method of inference? I have heard people talk about induction as if it was an abstract object but that doesn’t seem correct
Thank you again for the video
Life saver for my philosophy class 🤧
Wow! You have so beautifully explained it.
Thank you! I am glad it made sense!!
Why do I feel like a video with you And Cosmic Skeptic would be very informative and fun to watch?
That would be AWESOME! I am such a huge fan of his! Thanks for watching, Andrew.
Andrew T Wow, King Crocoduck and Andrew T are in the comments? Is this some sort of intellectual secret gathering I stumbled upon? I feel honored. 🙏🏼🙏🏼😂
Hi there! I’m so glad you enjoyed my video. It’s been a while since I have uploaded, so I was a bit nervous to see what people would think of the content. Thank you so much for the wonderful comments :)!
@@readandrap283 Haha. I am no where near the popularity of someone like King Crocoduck, but I appreciate the compliment. I just happen to know a few popular science and philosophy you-tubers lol.
@@philosophermit8215 I was definitely impressed with the quality of the videos. It's very rare to see such quality from smaller channels. If you don't mind me asking, do you teach philosophy, or did you major in some philosophy related field? You seem to have a very good understanding of the field, in general. You remind me of Cosmic Skeptic in many ways. I'll try to spread the word on your channel. I think your channel has quite a lot of potential for the future. Content like this often doesn't go unnoticed for long. Keep up the good work.
omg! Thank you so much! I was having such a hard time trying to comprehend this!!!
You're so welcome! I am glad it made sense :)!!!
Great video!
Excellent video: You're back with a bang! Good job!
Did you make the video yourself?
Hi!!! Long time no speak 😝. Thank you so much for sticking around! Yes, I edited the video myself. I did not film the footage though. I used a stock footage program called ArtGrid. Kinda pricey, but the footage is great!
@@philosophermit8215 Yes, it's been a long time. I was wondering what you were up to:D Are you studying philosophy as a major now, or is it just a hobby?
Aha, good to know. Thanks for the info.
I actually graduated with my bachelors in Philosophy last year. I am currently preparing for the GRE (probably taking it in June or July), and I should be applying to graduate school sometime this fall! :)
@@philosophermit8215 That's excellent! I hope you'd continue with the videos here. And thanks for replying:) By the way, just added you on Instagram; @johannesabsurdus is me.
@@ExistentialistDasein WOW! Is that your art? It is absolutely incredible! I especially love the drawings of Popper, Russell, and Schopenhauer :D
Pls can teach on Skepticsm and solipsism
Never heard or really thought about this but wow and yes!
This saved my life ❤️ ❤️
Thank you, it was really easy to understand
Wow, this was really helpful, thank you lots🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Although inductive reasoning may be inaccurate, it’s the price we pay for having organized thoughts that are not all over the place…imagine always questioning whether an object will fall or not every time you open your hand
This video helped so much! Thank you
4:32 nice sound effect, suggestion to add also an 'oof' sound
Thank you.
Your back!
I sure am! Thank you so much for sticking around even while I wasn’t posting. I’m hoping to make some more videos ASAP :-).
Hey have u uploaded the script of this video to google or anywhere online ??
Hi Mina, no I have not! I'm sorry about that. I don't usually upload my video scripts anywhere, but maybe that is a possibility for future videos. Hope you enjoyed the video!
Great work, keep it up!
Thank you so much, Eugene! :-) will do!
Hey Philosophermit! How did you produce your Intro? Its amazing! :)
Sorry for the extremely late reply! I used an editing system called Filmora for this, they have a lot of different animation features that helped me create the intro. Thanks for the compliment!! :-)
Thank you!
Thank you😭😭
Long time no see
HEY there, It's been forever!!! How have you been? I hope all has been well :-).
I'm so glad I finally got a new video out. Hoping to get back into the swing of things here soon. I feel so rusty!
Ur one to talk, u haven’t posted in 7 months! We miss you dude
thank you
ty
Scandalous
Fix the sound x
Thank you!!!!
In geology, we face this problem all the time: Is the present the key to the past? ...and careers have been built or destroyed by this assumption. But that’s what science is about - gathering more examples, doing the tests, seeing what happens...to me, induction is a tool for testing hypotheses, not a prescriptive dogma.
Yes, but inductive reasoning is a dead end. Science can never answer metaphysical questions because science really isn't knowledge.
@@humeanrgmnt7367 - Science knows how to safely land a wheeled robot on Mars…how is that not knowledge?
@@prtauvers Do you know without assumption and with absolute certainty that you will always land on Mars safely? If not, then you have no knowledge. Just an assumption.
@@humeanrgmnt7367 -if I don’t, a scientist will figure out why that happened.
@@prtauvers What if they do 'figure it out' as you claim, but the rover keeps crashing? Cheers, but I think you are missing the point.
If the universe becomes unstable, or non uniform, the habit of being inductive about the future will become less of a habit? That seems to be a conclusion if we follow hume's line of logic.
You could start adding provisos or caveats to every statement about the future ,e.g. " if the past has any bearing on the future then the sun should rise tomorrow, but it won't necessarily rise by logical necessity".
If you take this Hume stuff too literally and made an effort not to exercise the 'habit' of induction, let's say as a philosophical experiment, you would have to live in a constant state of bewilderment or surprise since the future would be completely unpredictable.
Nice
To me, Induction answers the question "what does science do?" While Popper answers the question "what is science itself?"... Thoughts?
well, science is certainly not knowledge. Science is based on 'animal' faith, instinct and belief. Science is really a dead end when it comes to knowledge; science is full of assumptions and will never get us to certainty.
I love your content, and you’re quite attractive. that combo earned you a subscriber.
Scientific method
plase answer me did you have instagram or snap chat
Everybody knows apples don't fall to the ground on Wednesdays
kool
The statement "future behaviour will be the same as past behaviour has no grounding" is proven false billions upon billions of time every second.
Okay, I'm sorry... why does this, super intelligent, knowledgeable woman, have too be so damned attractive? I apologize, please continue my lesson...❤
Who cares if A does not follow B all the time or only in ergodic systems? we would simply make a construct to rationalize the new truth? - in fact that may be why we have paradoxes! - the wrong or inaccurate construct will lead to a paradox.
Approaching induction from a basis of scientific foundation, such as regarding gravity, laws of thermodynamics, physical laws of the universe, you can say yes, it makes sense to use inductive reasoning. It is literally why we have computers. You cannot use inductive reasoning for systems that are too complex to accurately measure with any degree of certainty, like another human being. You cannot assume Jim will be nice tomorrow because he was nice all week, you can only predict that it will be maybe likely, but you cannot say with certainty that it will be so because Jim is an amalgamation of several thousands of systems that all have variables external and internal. You inductively know a thing will fall, but you cannot inductively know that Jim will throw a ball back to you a 12th time. It is impossible. Hume's argument is absolutely and utterly pointless to assume anything other than what we can observe and reason with our senses as a collective species. We are not God, we cannot play God. Yes, the Earth can spontaneously explode tomorrow, but that does not change the fact that neither you nor I could stop it, and even more so, that we could even prove such a thing could happen, when all of the evidence we have prior points to being- "No, the Earth is likely not going to explode tomorrow." All that we have is our senses and evidence.
the argument isn't supposed to convince you to abandon inductive reasoning, merely to raise your skepticism, and not claim it to be necessary or absolutely certain.
You look beautiful
Hey))
Sorry but I already have my own problems, I can’t bother with Hume’s problem atm.
If it is the case that the biblical worldview is true, there is an all powerful Creator God Who implements and imposes these laws onto His creation, and then reveals it to be the case. We can put the biblical worldview on one side of the demarcation line, and the non-biblical worldview on the other.
thank you!