3 ms·
The real problem is that people are usually blind: almost nobody reasons about philosophic implications of induction. What I mean is this: can we know that in t
by fedeb95 4y ago
The real problem is that people are usually blind: almost nobody reasons about philosophic implications of induction. What I mean is this: can we know that in the portion of knowledge we don't know there isn't an even worse problem? In general we can't know the unknown, but we should at least try to look
- nathias 4y agoproblems of induction are solved by the scientific method, bit by bit there is nothing better we can do except try to lean more, but on the side of what to do with information we have quite large leaps to go still ...
- fedeb95 4y agoSolved isn't the exact word. It's something. It's the best we can do. That doesn't justify reckless behaviours in my opinion, just because we don't yet have scientific evidence that they are
- themitigating 4y agoBut not acting also has consequences, one's we know.
- nathias 4y agowithout evidence, how do we know what reckless is?
- fedeb95 4y agoWe can take time to evaluate things and study more. That's not usually the case: immediate profit is usually the driver