>>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. 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. Thus, no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences.
>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.