3 ms·
That's the silly part of the question. Basically Hume and others are saying that because we don't know every single little piece of information and because ther
by WhoBeI 12y ago
That's the silly part of the question. Basically Hume and others are saying that because we don't know every single little piece of information and because there is the possibility, however remote, of an unknown we can't be sure our conclusion is true.
So although we have seen evidence for it time and time again. Even though we have excluded countless of other possibilities Hume would still sit in the back row muttering "there COULD be a different explanation".
Like I said, silly.
- logicchains 12y agoIt's not silly, it's a description of reality. Epistemology is concerned with what can be known, not with what assumptions are practical for decision-making. Just because something has happened the same way a hundred billion times in the past, that's no iron guarantee it will in future, it just means its incredibly probable. Understanding this means understanding reality more clearly.
- punee 12y agoYes, there could. It's not "silly", it's the basis of what separates science from religion. There's no final answer. Everything can be questioned. It's funny how purported skeptics are so quick to look for eternal truths.
- codebolt 12y agoSure, everything can be questioned, but if you reject all assumptions then you're not left with much. There's no guarantee that the contents of your memory aren't all false or that the universe won't stop existing 1 minute from now. Yet I hold both of these claims to be false, simply because if I was to go around seriously contemplating such issues all the time then I'd just be living in a constant state of existential confusion. And there's no enlightenment in that.
- WhoBeI 12y agoYes, everything can be questioned including this theory. I'm saying that focusing our efforts on all the different ways we could be wrong doesn't really help us move forward. So it would be "silly" to spend our time on that endeavor instead of trying to apply the theory to as many scenarios as possible to see if it works. But, yeah, maybe using the word "silly" was a bit harsh. I could have written "not productive" instead. Besides, the article is not a scientific one it's a philosophical one. In science you arrive at a conclusion using theories and observations while in philosophy you arrive at conclusions by theories and consensus.
- dynamic 12y agoHe isn't saying that there's a possibility "however remote"; he's saying that we have absolutely no reason to prefer one explanation over another. "So although we have seen evidence for it time and time again": you're begging the question and assuming the principle of induction, which is exactly what Hume is saying you can't justify.