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.
-
-
Replying to @fare
Hume argues that you can't justify induction a priori, through mere deduction. He's right. Popper's the one who takes it to a stupid place.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @ArthurB
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fare
I disagree, you have to take induction on faith. You can't bootstrap epistemology from nothing.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The stateful context of induction is neither faith nor nothing. It is a universal learning context with expectations set by both innate and acquired structure, and revised through a bayesian process on an explanatory model of the entire world (rather than on individual events).
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.