Restating the Paradox

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a scientist so I can't give you a direct answer. But Hume would say that evidence of order presupposes an assumption of UP. One of his most significant assertions is "There is no necessary connection between cause and effect". You see a billiard ball strike another billiard ball and the second ball moves. Cause and effect. Order. But Hume says you only call it order because you've seen many instances of ball striking ball and so your judgement of order is because of custom or habit. From a strictly logical standpoint it wouldn't matter if you could assign cause and effect to everything in the universe. It would all be in the past. And you can't prove(rationally justify) the future will be like the past without assuming UP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this where Mr Bayes steps in - not with proof but with rational justification.

I've already mentioned that science can avoid belief in truths (should attribute this to Mr Popper) and be a purely deductive method.

From the little I've read I understand that Popper and Bayes are the standard modern response to Hume. Maybe Mr Bayes' representative on earth would like to comment.

chez