Thanks. Arts, yes. Some interesting philosophical ideas but philosophy too shld aim at getting closer to truth so relativity undermines that
But this is very tedious & only needs to be acknowledged once. We can still use induction to attain usable knowledge & function.
-
-
Even if we're actually all brains in jars & nothing is real. Assume it is & create antibiotics etc anyway.
-
If £10 is enough to buy lunch, I can inductively reason that £20 is enough to buy 2 lunches & thereby function in the world.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would disagree on that. Rejecting induction is the key to solving some thorny (and very tedious) problems/misconceptions in the humanities
-
Can you give an example? Can I not assume that if B is taller than A & C is taller than B, C is taller than A?
-
Lets make it concrete, see here this example Popper gives. Taken from Monnerjahn 2016pic.twitter.com/rxKnodkFaw
-
I think we might be talking about different things.
-
Yes, what you were doing there is deduction.
-
Yes, I suppose I was in that example but tennis balls & wine bottles consistently not fitting? I think we agree re: the above.
-
IOW, there are constants we can rely on for practical purposes whilst still holding provisionally but ppl often assume constants wrongly?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.