Inductive reasoning can also establish truth but so much philosophy doesn't aim to do that
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 -
-
-
All you know is that, so far, the ‘all C are taller than A’ hypothesis is not refuted.
-
Well, no. But to say If C is taller than B and B taller than A, C is taller than A?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Induction would be: given I saw 3 instances of C => A all possible C must be >A. That conclusion is not supported.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.