Restating the Paradox

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Predicting that an event will occur because it did before, then having it occur, doesn't prove order. It doesn't prove it will happen again. You predict it will happen again because you assume order.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're still messing up. When you use several different events and derive *general* models that apply to as-of-yet unobserved events, and they work, you can have a high degree of confidence that your model is right.

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do you mean here by "fundamental truth"?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Basic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hell of a definition. Quit screwing around. What do you mean by "fundamental truth" and is the axiom you stated a "fundamental truth"?

[ QUOTE ]
I've said before, all non-theistic worldviews reduce to pragmatism. Which is fine, just don't pretend there's logical justification. It's a faith position.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, using a certain context of the word "faith", which is *not* the same context as religious "faith" no matter how much you claim it to be. You've got nothing better to offer here than context-dropping fallacies and tautologies.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You are arguing that induction is considered rational only by faith, since it's can't be proven.


[/ QUOTE ]


What I'm arguing is first principles can't be demonstrated by either empiricism or rationalism, otherwise they wouldn't be first principles.

From the link:

[ QUOTE ]

What David Hume was attempting to point out was not that evidence was lacking, but rather, that proof was lacking. We have no deductive way to show that induction is rigorously and necessarily true. Nonetheless, despite this formal deductive failure, all sane (dare I say rational?) people act as if induction were as true as any formally defined proof.


[/ QUOTE ]

First he says it can't be proved, then he says it's rational, then he says it can't be proved. So who's irrational here? Notice his reliance on pragmatism.

I can play the link game too:

Here

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You're still messing up. When you use several different events and derive *general* models that apply to as-of-yet unobserved events, and they work, you can have a high degree of confidence that your model is right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say you don't?

[ QUOTE ]

Hell of a definition. Quit screwing around. What do you mean by "fundamental truth" and is the axiom you stated a "fundamental truth"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you understand that if I use a dictionary the chief of the dictionary police, PM, will have me arrested?

[ QUOTE ]

It is, using a certain context of the word "faith", which is *not* the same context as religious "faith" no matter how much you claim it to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I make that claim?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that is a very weak response. It may be rational to assume induction is valid but it is an act of faith to believe induction is valid.


[/ QUOTE ]

The dawn breaks and the birds are singing.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think that is a very weak response. It may be rational to assume induction is valid but it is an act of faith to believe induction is valid.


[/ QUOTE ]

The dawn breaks and the birds are singing.

[/ QUOTE ]
However, science is totally rational. That some people believe scientific truths are naked facts about the world is their mistake and nothing to do with science.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However, science is totally rational.


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by rational. It proceeds on the method of reason but I believe if based on non-theistic assumptions it is also irrational. Yes, it can be and is both.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

However, science is totally rational.


[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by rational. It proceeds on the method of reason but I believe if based on non-theistic assumptions it is also irrational. Yes, it can be and is both.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just mean that scientific statements are logically valid. You mean something else.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I just mean that scientific statements are logically valid


[/ QUOTE ]

The scientfic method is a combination of induction and deduction as process, but the final form of a scientific law is an empirical statement, not an exercise in logic.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I just mean that scientific statements are logically valid


[/ QUOTE ]

The scientfic method is a combination of induction and deduction as process, but the final form of a scientific law is an empirical statement, not an exercise in logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't think so. QM is great science but science does not claim QM is true.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

QM is great science but science does not claim QM is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

It beats me how great science can't be claimed to be true.