“In the first, the word is “canon”, for literature. Please show where I inferred treating anything as canon?”

Thank you for the correction. I’m not a native English speaker, so without proper revision, a few mistakes do appear. I take you understood the argument, though.

You said: “If you haven’t read David Hume, thoroughly, you have nary an idea to what I refer. Induction is an error. Case closed.”

This is equivalent to say that because Hume wrote it, it is true. Unqualified, it looks like an appeal to authority. I understand the urge for brevity, but it is convenient in more than one way.

I also understand there is a lot of people, PhDs, who have a lot of claims regarding a lot of authors. Most of the time, it is speculative, however, mainly when fishing for ulterior meanings that were not in the text to advance their own agendas.

For my conclusion that Hume only investigated the weaknesses of induction, as it is natural for a philosopher, but never really condenmed it, I don’t use texts from PhDs – just his own (taken from the same text as above – it’s somewhat long, but necessary to settle the matter on what he really thought – emphasis mine):

“…What is the foundation of all conclusions from experience? This implies a new question, which may be of more difficult solution and explication. Philosophers, that give themselves airs of superior wisdom and sufficiency, have a hard task when they encounter persons of inquisitive dispositions, who push them from every corner to which they retreat, and who are sure at last to bring them to some dangerous dilemma. The best expedient to prevent this confusion, is to be modest in our pretensions; and even to discover the difficulty ourselves before it is objected to us. By this means, we may make a kind of merit of our very ignorance.

…It is proper that we should Ÿin general indulge our inclination in the most elaborate philosophical researches, notwithstanding our sceptical principles, and also that we should Ÿgive rein to our inclination to be positive and certain about particular points, according to how we see them at any particular instant.”

From what I read, what I can gather is not that we should not use induction, only that we should use it while remaining aware of its shortcomings, which were duly noted.

You say: “Unsupported metaphysical claim, summarily rejected. Hence, empiricism is used to make objects knowable, quantifiable.

The empiricism I know is the one based on the premise that experience, i. e. the information we can gather through our senses is the only valid way of acquiring knowledge. But if you understand that experience is always particular, to use that experience to reach conclusions is to do exactly what you are condemning: to induce from the experience to the universe, from the particular to the general. Unless you don’t, of course, but then you will refrain from making any predictions about things you can’t experience (like saying bipedal intelligent aliens are a mathematical improbability).

That is my problem with your position – you criticize a stance to which there is really no other alternative, but take it yourself when convenient to you. As Hume said, it becomes an issue of chosing between a false reason and no reason at all.

Youy again: “So much for the debate, a finishing argumentum ad hominem.”

Of course, your suggestion I was adept of metaphysics was valid, no ad hominem at all. “Do as I say, do not do as I do” seems to be a favorite motto of yours.

In any case, it seems we already hijacked too much of these comment sections, so, if there is any further divergence of opinion, I suggest we leave it at that.

Cheers,
NH

I don’t know of any way to suggest tolerance to them other than by example. A quick, angry reaction only entrenches them more deeply (as it probably does to us).

In any case, I feel compassion for anyone who believes that they are a “sinner”.

But that’s just me …

In the first, the word is “canon”, for literature. Please show where I inferred treating anything as canon? Else, this statement falls to being argumentum ad hominem.

Hume, however, is not really your ally, since he defended that induction could not be justified by rational means, not that it was “wrong” or should not be used (can you find a quote from Hume where he says “induction is an error”?). There are many people who state that Hume was an opponent of induction, but the more sensible view is that he was only demonstrating its weaknesses. He, in fact, goes on to use induction in much of his work.

Actually, his argument fell into circular logic until correlation and counterfactual dependence were properly defined. Using an assertive claim without evidence, brings into play causality by induction, which is an error. I tended towards brevity, and simply stated induction was an error.

Use of induction, even by Hume, does not negate an error. He was well aware of this, of his own. Those I know who state he was an opponent of induction carry PhD.’s in Philosophical disciplines; I defer to their authority, and it has come down that most describe him in just such a way.

Unfortunately, knowledge is always provisional, and while we can use deduction to validade it (through Popper’s falsifications, for example), we cannot with it achieve new practical, scientific knowledge, since the “real” nature of the universe and the objects within it will be always be inherently unknowable.

Unsupported metaphysical claim, summarily rejected. Hence, empiricism is used to make objects knowable, quantifiable.

And the “human” characteristic implied above was related to our unique capacity for abstraction and flexibility of thought, which is, in the proper context, something that does make humans distinctly different than any other animal.

Self-referencing truth claim with no supporting evidence, logical error.

Not withstanding, the manner with which this is structured falls under petitio principii, so I will ask: According to your parameters, a homo sapien who has some form of retardation, mongoloidism or other form of malady/disability that cannot show the “unique capacity for abstraction and flexibility of thought”, must obviously be an animal, and therefore not human, yes?

That does not mean it makes us “special” in the “better” connotation of the word, but it is neverthless true.

I would find it dubious that the author was making an assertive distinction that was intended to define a regressive state, in this case. Your semantic argument is duly noted, but refuted by context.

I notice by your choice of words, and philosophers, bluffing is your fundament.

So much for the debate, a finishing argumentum ad hominem.

“Billiard ball explanation;”

Again, he was not saying induction is wrong – just that it cannot be rationally justified. But let’s allow the very Hume to settle the issue, on a quote from “A Treatise Concerning Human Understanding”:

“I conclude, by an induction which seems to me very evident, that an opinion or belief is nothing but an idea, that is different from a fiction, not in the nature or the order of its parts, but in the manner of its being conceived.”

I find it funny that he would consciously commit an error he felt so strongly about. Don’t you?

“I notice by your choice of words, and philosophers, metaphysics is your fundament.”

I notice by your choice of words, and philosophers, bluffing is your fundament.

“We have no further grounds to debate.”

That we never had.

“It is one of the traits that does make us human.”

Induced.

I notice by your choice of words, and philosophers, metaphysics is your fundament. We have no further grounds to debate.

If you haven’t read David Hume, thoroughly, you have nary an idea to what I refer. Induction is an error. Case closed.

I have read Hume. And a few others from Carneades to Locke, from Mill to Popper. That does not mean, however, that any of their words should be treated as cannon, like you imply.

Hume, however, is not really your ally, since he defended that induction could not be justified by rational means, not that it was “wrong” or should not be used (can you find a quote from Hume where he says “induction is an error”?). There are many people who state that Hume was an opponent of induction, but the more sensible view is that he was only demonstrating its weaknesses. He, in fact, goes on to use induction in much of his work.

In reality, it is unreasonable for someone to attack induction on the grounds that it cannot be absolutely realiable like deduction, since that was never part of its “job description” to begin with. It only makes sense for someone to criticize in an absolute way induction as a method of acquiring knowledge if, unlike any human being, that someone does have true knowledge of the nature of the universe to use deduction exclusively.

In short, the problem of induction is real – it is, however, unavoidable. If everything could be known through deduction, there would be no need for induction. Unfortunately, knowledge is always provisional, and while we can use deduction to validade it (through Popper’s falsifications, for example), we cannot with it achieve new practical, scientific knowledge, since the “real” nature of the universe and the objects within it will be always be inherently unknowable.

This case will never be closed.

And the “human” characteristic implied above was related to our unique capacity for abstraction and flexibility of thought, which is, in the proper context, something that does make humans distinctly different than any other animal. That does not mean it makes us “special” in the “better” connotation of the word, but it is neverthless true.

If you haven’t read David Hume, thoroughly, you have nary an idea to what I refer. Induction is an error. Case closed.

The position regarding “human” was not non sequitur, as it was invoked in the article where stated trait created a definition of “human” as being distinctly different than any other organism, under an ascribed parameter. To state in such a manner, is to attempt to raise above or attempt to create leveraged significance for the defined.