Truly brilliant examples from mathematics about why repeated confirmations don’t constitute proofs. Clear morals here for epistemology generally: why induction cannot possibly be a thing. https://youtu.be/kp1C0E8Za7k Just 7 minutes. But you’re convinced by 2:40...
-
Does "rigorous" mean something like we have to confirm it's worked a certain number of times? So it could be more or less rigorous?
No, he's talking about mathematical induction which is well defined valid form of proof
![June “Wakalix”, [null]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1187814014992076800/5SLXiLlV_normal.jpg)
-
-
Yes. IF he's talking about that (in my experience, online in these discussions) most don't realise that kind of induction is a form of deduction.
-
Right.. but it’s best to clarify
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.