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...
-
-
Replying to @TWakalix
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @TWakalix
No, he's talking about mathematical induction which is well defined valid form of proof
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @TWakalix
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @ToKTeacher @TWakalix
Right.. but it’s best to clarify
9:54 PM - 12 Jun 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.