3 ms·
It's the same sort of problem of induction that Hume pointed out in his original argument. Nothing substantially changes if we substitute "short explanations a
by yters 8y ago
It's the same sort of problem of induction that Hume pointed out in his original argument. Nothing substantially changes if we substitute "short explanations are better" for "sun rises in the morning".
The basic problem remains, though we've consolidated many problems of induction into one.
- lisper 8y ago> Nothing substantially changes if we substitute "short explanations are better" for "sun rises in the morning". No, that's not true. The operative word is "explanation", not "short". Explanation changes everything. It is not enough to say, "The sun has risen every day in the past, therefore it will continue to rise in the future." You have to explain why the sun has risen every day in the past (i.e. the earth is round, it rotates about its axis, yada yada yada). Conciseness is not as much a requirement as it is a consequence of the more primary requirement of being a good explanation and consistent with all available data. In actual practice, these requirements generally eliminate all theories but one. It just turns out that those theories tend to be concise.