Popper kept repeating Hume's idiotic argument for the impossibility of induction until his death in 1994, when Solomonoff solved induction in 1964. Dishonesty? Incompetence? Insanity? It's like taking Zeno's Paradox as a serious argument for the impossibility of motion.
Induction is not deduction—duh. And yet you CAN justify induction a priori—it's just that this a priori includes a stateful context, which both Hume and Popper wrongly exclude a priori.
-
-
I disagree, you have to take induction on faith. You can't bootstrap epistemology from nothing.
-
E.g. anti-inductionist believe their position is correct because it's never worked before. There's nothing inconsistent about this position.
- 3 more replies
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.