if induction cannot be justified with induction, why can deduction

File: mem.jpg (4KB, 248x172px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 248x172px

if cogito ergo sum is an empirical observation, what's the problem with empiricism?

i believe susan haack concludes that deduction is just as unsound as deduction.

File: 1478670480835.jpg (363KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1920x1080px

>>8945810
justification is a meme invented by rationalists before their nihilism.

>>8945877
I'm presuming you wanted to end your sentence with "induction". the difference would be that deduction can at least be inductively justified. although if induction is circular, that doesn't help. but it does mean that deduction at least has two of the two means of justification going for it, compared to induction which only has one.

Because deduction is simply using definitions that you appointed to things, ie it's true by personal definition (Wittgenstein argues how this personal definition can constitute the only form of truth. At least he argues this initially).
Induction is connecting certain defined phenomena by invoking causation. Causation cannot be proven to persist, rationally or logically. It's simply a property ingrained in our thinking.

>>8945917
Referring to your latter argument, it seems what you're saying is based on Hume. How come induction is tied to causation? Aa piece of inductive *knowledge* could be "all humans have hearts" - what's the tie between that and causation? I was reading about Humes argument earlier today, and I'm honestly confused here.

>>8945928
It is Hume, yes.
Basically, causation implies that the stimuli we receive are tied together. If we see event A always following event B, we presume A CAUSES B. But one can never be sure that next time it'll happen again.

In your example, one can find empirically that if we open up a dead body, a heart is inside. One can hear this heart beating inside a living human's chest. One can observe it in countless ways. So we assume there is always a beating heart inside living humans.
In other words, we assume our observations of this heart thing are caused by an actual heart being there, required to keep a human going.
But what if next time you check anywhere there won't be any trace of a heart? We can't prove this isn't possible.

>>8945965
Thanks, it makes sense now. The relation to causation is that we presume it to exist, and therefore connect things that lack logical connection. Since they lack logical connection there's no reason to assume any future cases will be similar.

>>8945891
t. Frederick I am not listening because it hurts my feelings NEETche

>>8945965
We can open the chest of every human to see if they have a heart though

>>8946180
>We can open the chest of every human to see if they have a heart though
This is your brain on empirism

>>8946200
lol

>>8946180
I appriciated the joke answer above, but to pretend you're not baiting:
most presume your claim, but it cannot be proven unless every single chest is open and observed. Taking a deductive look at the issue: from
>all observed C's are H's
you can't leap to
>all C's are H's.