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 -
E.g. anti-inductionist believe their position is correct because it's never worked before. There's nothing inconsistent about this position.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ArthurB
Anti-inductionists are as idiotic as those claiming that motion is impossible. Every child proves them wrong by using induction all the time to learn how to move, to eat, to speak, to think, etc. Some beliefs are so utterly stupid only very intelligent people believe them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fare
Saying the child "proves them wrong" is begging the question.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That children learn from example is pretty obvious as well as pretty well documented. That's how they seem to learn French in France and Russian in Russia, instead of by a miraculous coincidence.
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.