Hume on induction (sort of) 10 Nov 201110 Nov 2011 Reading this from the Enquiry, in the section on Miracles (Chapter X), it hit me Hume is describing induction*… A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. In such conclusions as are founded on an infallible experience, he expects the event with the last degree of assurance, and regards his past experience as a full proof of the future existence of that event. In other cases, he proceeds with more caution: he weighs the opposite experiments: he considers which side is supported by the greater number of experiments: to that side he inclines, with doubt and hesitation; and when at last he fixes his judgement, the evidence exceeds not what we properly call probability. All probability, then, supposes an opposition of experiments and observations, where the one side is found to overbalance the other, and to produce a degree of evidence, proportioned to the superiority. A hundred instances or experiments on one side, and fifty on another, afford a doubtful expectation of any event; though a hundred uniform experiments, with only one that is contradictory, reasonably beget a pretty strong degree of assurance. In all cases, we must balance the opposite experiments, where they are opposite, and deduct the smaller number from the greater, in order to know the exact force of the superior evidence. * Yes, I am that slow. Epistemology Philosophy Quotes
Epistemology Belief and evolution 30 Jun 201130 Jun 2011 One of my favourite songs is “I don’t believe in the sun” by the Magnetic Fields, in which the protagonist declares that there can’t be a sun because it would shine on other guys, not me, when his woman love has left him. Imagine if there were people who thought… Read More
Epistemology Who invented worldviews? 5 Feb 20235 Feb 2023 As a young man/teenager, I heard a lot about worldviews, and didn’t think much of it. The philosophers talked about them, the theologians talked about them, and the gurus talked about them. It was always a choice between worldviews. But it was at best only vaguely communicated by these great… Read More
Philosophy Focus on the “how”, not the “why” 12 Aug 2009 [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH40zaUxTTE&hl=en&fs=1&] Read More
I predict, with great confidence, that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. There are two causes of this confidence. First, we have observed sunrise every morning so long as we have been able to make observations. Secondly, we have a dairly recent, but robust, well tested theory of how the earth and solar system work, which predicts sunrise every morning. Which of these two should be more important in supporting my confidence? I hope this is a question of interest.
Both should be important in tempering belief. The first observation suggests that when an acorn hits me on the head I am not going to view the event like chicken licken and will instead find his antics amusing. The fact that both observations support each other gives some confidence in reaching the conclusion that folk working in science and theory do not need to cry wolf and adopt the extreme solution of foxy loxy.
Hume is describing induction*… The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue … Monologuethesim: Thou shalt not move to the subjective position
Didn’t realize that mathematical proof by induction (exact description by way of induction) was outdated. You/Hume are describing a means of standing exterior to considerations (remaining objective) while permitting for small(?) leakage of uncertainty/error into the object of focus. (Safe by asserting that contamination does not escape the ‘black hole’ type object)