What is /sci/'s usual response to the problem of induction?

>>8454720
That's the one that the axiom of infinity cannot be proven via first principles right?

The inductive set and naturals model a very large finite set pretty well without worrying about just how big that very large set is.
Sure you could prove that induction works on every finite set via first principles...but I'm lazy and that sounds boring.
ne?

>>8454747

>he hasn't read Hume

>>8454720

>If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

Not really. I don't grip to ideals of purity of reason.

>>8454720
Obviously there's no response.

The problem is unsolvable. In this world, you're stuck guessing.

>>8454720
Hume's right, we pretty much accept it as it is even though it's fallacious.

>>8455697

>there's no response
>The problem is unsolvable
>You're stuck guessing

If your premise were correct, its own terms would claim itself unprovable. That's the solution by the way. This:

>>8455685

File: pepe.gif (1MB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 499x499px

>>8454720
This is why pure mathematics is the only knowledge worth pursuing.

In pure mathematics, you can know something with 100% certainty without having to resort to handwavy bullshit like "muh evidence!" or "muh models!" How does it feel to know that the entirety of all scientific knowledge based on inductive arguments is LITERALLY invalid, and therefore useless? Anyone who isn't studying pure mathematics is wasting their time trying to understand something that is 100% impossible to be understood.

>>8455699
>If your premise were correct, its own terms would claim itself unprovable.

So?

I don't need to prove it by deduction to claim that it is true.

>>8455709
It's like you're from upside down world.

Mathematics isn't knowledge. You are pursuing a maze of your own construction. It's naval gazing.

Knowledge is what you get when you successfully model actual reality.

>>8455734
>implying mathematics doesn't exist in reality

wew lad

>>8455735
That's not what I implied.