Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-22-2005, 04:01 PM
bearly bearly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

hi, what is an "unobserved matter of fact"?........something that we who speak in the vernacular can understand..........b
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-22-2005, 04:05 PM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but remember science is in the business of predictions, and predictions are necessarily about the future or unobserved matters of fact. That is why Hume's skepticism about induction has occupied philosophers of science ever since.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but in the context of my discussion with NotReady, the point is still valid. His argument was that science is "faith"-based since we have to assume that nature is orderly and therefore our conclusions about it are meaningful.

Thanks again for the better explanation of Hume's arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-22-2005, 04:06 PM
sweetjazz sweetjazz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 95
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

Say you leave your room and go out for lunch. When you come back, your desk is right where it was when you left. That the desk stayed stationary (as opposed to wandering around the room and settling back in its initial location while you were out) is an unobserved matter of fact.

Anything that is true but was never seen to be so by someone is an unobserved matter of fact.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-22-2005, 05:43 PM
bearly bearly is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 24
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

hi sweet, i'm always looking to get to the 'particular go of it', not, "hume said, locke said, hume replied..........." i think it is safe to say that we have a pretty good presumption that the desk did not move and is in the exact place it was when we left. why take on all the extra baggage of asserting that the unobserved events were as we say they were? nothing is gained by it. i must admit: i stay w/ the premise that philosophy is an activity, not a study of history or an accumulation of information. the latter is the "union card" that the under-graduate has to earn (like pre-med). beyond that, the search should be for what is right and what is wrong, i realize that all(virtually) of these historical questions will end up by working philosophers in something like the "philosophy of mind". but, that is the modern metaphysics, and there is no turning back (that i can see)...........b
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-22-2005, 08:29 PM
Scotch78 Scotch78 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

[ QUOTE ]
. Life, for example, just wouldn't be possible in true chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

This conclusion can probably be supported, but not your claim that universal order is axiomatic. Basically, life can be defined as an order-imposing process on the underlying chaos of the universe.

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-22-2005, 08:48 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

For Hume there are two types of truths--matters of fact and relations between ideas. Matters of fact are empirical facts about the world--like that there's a tree in my front yard or that it's 76 degrees right now. Relations between ideas are truths like 2+2=4 and 'all triangles have three sides'. These are not 'about the world' because we don't have to invesitgate the world to know that they are true.

Unobserved matters of fact are empirical truths that either 1) are about the future, or 2) have simply not been observed--like some fact about some planet in some distant reach of the galaxy that we have never seen.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-22-2005, 11:19 PM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

[ QUOTE ]
This conclusion can probably be supported, but not your claim that universal order is axiomatic. Basically, life can be defined as an order-imposing process on the underlying chaos of the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-22-2005, 11:29 PM
Scotch78 Scotch78 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rofl. Actually, I have a better idea what you're talking about than you do.

Scott
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-23-2005, 12:01 AM
jthegreat jthegreat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 27
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

Apparently not, because you don't even understand what I said.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-23-2005, 04:18 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: On Hume and order in nature

I asked this in the wrong thread (since I didn't know this one existed, and ended up hijacking the thread):

Why is the universe being ordered "self-evidently true", but god's existence is not?

I would say that the universe's existence is axiomatic. We assume we are not in a dream. But, the fact that it's ordered does not have to be. I'd like to see that other post where you explain why it has to be an axiom rather than a (scientific) fact.

Other posts I wrote in that thread that should have been here:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's equivocating the word "faith". We've been through all this before. He's saying that induction is "faith" (or at least thinking that induction is valid/reasonable is).

[/ QUOTE ]

More specifically, he is stating that the idea of an orderly universe, which is required for the validity of science, is based on an unprovable assumption and therefore must be taken on faith.

However, as I stated in the thread I started earlier today, that the universe is currently ordered is axiomatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... and we know the universe is ordered by induction. We examine it. Since every oberservation has shown it to be ordered, we induce that it is ordered. And the sun will come up(*) tomorrow. I know that by faith, of course. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

(*) Note: by "come up", I mean that the rotation of the earth will bring the sun into our line of sight, in a way that it appears to be "coming up". [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Induction doesn't provide certainty, though. Axioms do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science doesn't provide certainty either. It provides cogency.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Science doesn't provide certainty either. It provides cogency.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The point is that you can be certain that nature is ordered because it's axiomatic. If you "knew" through induction, you wouldn't be 100% certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not 100% certain. And, by "Universe", I'm talking about the whole thing. Not just the part we've observed. We are talking about NotReady, here... and his point was that scientific knowleged relies on faith. Again, science doesn't provide certainty. It uses induction. But, that's not "faith". I have no idea what your argument is here.


[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

You think I'm talking about knowledge gained through scientific means. I'm not. I'm talking about whether or not the universe is ordered, and how certain we are of it. We know it's ordered. If that knowledge is based on induction, we aren't certain, and therefore we aren't certain that science is completely valid, since it's based on the idea of an ordered universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. Validity is not the same as certainty.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "we"? And who made the axiom? And why does this matter? And... nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't leave this alone...

[ QUOTE ]
However, if that knowledge (universe is ordered) is axiomatic, then we *are* certain, and therefore we *are* certain that scientific methods are valid, even if their conclusions aren't 100% true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound like NotReady, now. His axiom is that God exists. Yours is that the Universe is ordered.

I'll repeat: I am not 100% certain that the Universe is ordered. I treat it as a fact, however, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that it is.

Would you mind explaining why you think the universe being ordered has to be an axiom, rather than a scientific fact?

(Note: a scientific fact is not 100% certain. It is considered to be a fact due to the overhwelming supporting evidence, and therefore, by induction is considered to be a fact.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.