Yes. Knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. Observation or experiment never confirms theory 100%. Can only refute.
-
-
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
So we can only assume that bigger things don't fit inside smaller things coz every time it's been tried, it's failed?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
Because past observations don’t logically include conclusions about future observations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
But this is very tedious & only needs to be acknowledged once. We can still use induction to attain usable knowledge & function.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
I would disagree on that. Rejecting induction is the key to solving some thorny (and very tedious) problems/misconceptions in the humanities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
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?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
Lets make it concrete, see here this example Popper gives. Taken from Monnerjahn 2016pic.twitter.com/rxKnodkFaw
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
I think we might be talking about different things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BaileyNagy
Yes, what you were doing there is deduction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JCMaas @BaileyNagy
Yes, I suppose I was in that example but tennis balls & wine bottles consistently not fitting? I think we agree re: the above.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
IOW, there are constants we can rely on for practical purposes whilst still holding provisionally but ppl often assume constants wrongly?
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.