reminder that over 250 years ago a philosopher single-handedly

So long cause and effect! BWAHAHAHAHA!

Fuck you billiard balls!

>>7794507
what did he say?

>>7794507
>reminder that over 250 years ago a philosopher single-handedly BTFO of science for all time by proving that inductive reasoning is irrational

Is that a bad thing? People here worship Popper and he was basically the last nail in inductivism's coffin.

>>7794544
>Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties—demonstrative reasoning and probable reasoning[note 1]—and both of these are inadequate. With regard to demonstrative reasoning, Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular.[59] Turning to probable reasoning, Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past. As this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question, it would be circular reasoning.[60] Thus, no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences.

>>7794552
popper was BTFO by kuhn

>>7794555
And what does mean in English?

>>7794562
This is what he is saying

>Even though we have demonstrated through mathematics that the world is governed by laws, we cannot prove that the world will continue to work this way and as such every science is useless and we should all be philosophers like me who spend entire days with their fist up their asses until they come up with more pseudo-intellectual garbage like this.

A true rennaisance man.

>>7794562
He's asserting that cause and effect doesn't exist.

His logic is so goddamn convoluted I'm not even going to try and decipher how he's asserting it though.

Wittgenstein was right, although he fell victim to it as well.
Philosophy wouldn't even exist if blowhards couldn't hide their flimsy arguments behind walls of invented, misappropriated, obscure and ambiguous language.

>>7794572
haha thanks for the translate, that's what i thought. he does have a point about the constants science accepts could possibly change in the future, or may have been different in the past

>>7794507
The problem with this is that there's no fix to it, it's just another hurr u cant kno nuffin argument.

Our options are either keep doing science despite having no formal logic basis for assuming that what has worked for the last 2000 years will keep working, or abandon science because trying to establish causal relations is futile and relegate ourselves to banging sticks together forever.

File: 11988720_888412517900327_6194302434841390558_n.jpg (48KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 480x720px

you cant know nuffin
you cant even know you know nuffin

here is my argument,

it might not be perfect but its the best we got, beats being a french aristocrat twiddling your thumb all day

Trivial kindergarten tier "u cannot know nuffin" does not refute science. On the contrary, science and the scientific method are the perfect solution to the "problem of induction". We are prepared to change our models and to come up with new explanations as soon as we make unpredicted observations.

>>7794585
>He's asserting that cause and effect doesn't exist.
No he isn't. He's asserting that we can't be sure that causes and effects will maintain the relationship we've been observing and he's right.

>>7794595
>french aristocrat
HAHAHAAHAHAH

You blow your cover, plebeian. Why some of you STEMfags don't learn some humanities. Even some redneck uncle Billy more educated than some of you fags.

>>7794555
Kuhn was (an) amazing (sociologist)

>>7794585
>Hume
>Convoluted

Awww, philosophy is too hard for you 'scientists', and it's so cute.

>>7796299
checked
I've never been able to understand why STEMfags hate philosophy. All these so-called 'skeptics' don't even understand the logic behind their skepticism.

Also, to everyone hating on Hume -- he was a diehard empiricist, his work pushed for and promoted a more rigorous scientific method (and explained why scientific knowledge changes over time), his writing is so ridiculously sober that even a STEMfag who couldn't name the subject and objects in a sentence would have no problem comprehending it with very little prior philosophical knowledge, and hell, he seemed like a goddamn bro at parties. Get yr fuckin' act together, STEMfags and skeptics, Hume is on your side! It's the guys like Derrida that you've really got to be worried about.

File: 1432768725451.jpg (39KB, 611x471px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 611x471px

>>7796378
>All these so-called 'skeptics' don't even understand the logic behind their skepticism.
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>7796392
Skepticism

>couldn't name the subject and objects in a sentence

>>7796378
You don't understand why people who are focused on results don't enjoy sitting around all day talking in circles going nowhere?

>>7796408
Can you really be results oriented if you don't know why/how/whether or not your methods produce them?

>>7796405
Skepticism is a very questionable thing to believe in.

>>7796417
lel

>>7794555
Yeah so he's rejecting the Principle of Relativity just because we can't prove it, nothing to be BTFO about.

And guess what, it doesn't even matter. As long as the predictions are correct for a given scale, science will stay useful and relevant.

>>7794507
That's not Karl Popper.

>>7794507
>yfw his reasoning only applies to social sciences

We don't know the principles of nature are yet, so of course we can't be sure if our models will work everytime

He doesn't say it's irrational since he says inductive reason is impossible to deny given reality. He says it's impossible to prove. He's entirely correct.