Would he disagree with the wine bottles & tennis ball example?
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?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And it could hold because this hypothesis was too vague to be useful. We can imagine make a very large wine bottle.
-
We could change the criteria, yes. OK, I'm not even sure what we're disagreeing on any more.
-
Ok, here is the thing. In humanities ‘induction’ is used to justify general claims. That is as harmful as postmodernist philosophers.
-
We agree on that.
-
Its also inconsistent and ideologically loaded. Statistics on gender & violent crime justify demonising men but stats on Islam & illiberal..
-
...values is something only brought up by racists. The two uses of the poisoned candy analogy shows this inconsistency.
-
But we can, and in fact must, make working assumptions to function & know anything. Must just acknowledge that's what they are.
-
That is exactly what makes it different from induction.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
the hypothesis may hold, but not because there were few cases that confirmed it. It may hold because it won’t be refuted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Induction did not really happen. What happened was that a conjecture was tested provisionally on a small dataset.
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.