I like the gentle background interference of music and voice, like a light entertainment show is on a nearby radio wavelength. As for inductive reasoning, it helps to follow arguments as they must apply to the challenge of diffusing a bomb.
Thank very much, @Philosophy_Overdose! Magnificent talk! I am looking forward to hear the rest! In particular, I am quite interested in that of Nelson Goodman (who incredibly Black does not cite here!) and Sidney Morgenbesser (whose production is very very hard to find un the web).
This might be a form of the "probabilistic reasoning," but I think it's fair to say that we intuitively use such reasoning in our thinking, and many inductive arguments may be naturally derived (i.e. deduced) from a kind of probabilistic premise, with a greater or smaller margin of error included almost by definition. In other words, the stochastic/probabilistic nature of reality may be a kind of metauniverse of our discourse, and many an inductive argument thus appears to be simply an appeal to this greater dimension, followed by a deduction.
Im always willing to try to give the golden mean of a brief description when people ask me for a explication of certain actions I do and attempt not to go for to long and to short of that description.
@@Philosophy_Overdose in other simple terms I’m looking for a middle way to explain certain actions or events to people without being to excessive or weak in the explication. Does that make sense?
Not in the sense of logical reasoning, I agree with Hume. He was discussing human understanding whilst Popper was not. Instead he wanted to make scientific knowledge more certain by logical reasoning.
@@MrLcowles Haven't others already done that? The question put to him was why should observation take priority over a theory. As far as I'm aware he did not have an answer for this.
@@MrLcowles More to the point how is what I said a refutation? And why was you asking for one considering the question posed? And why should scientific observations be given privillage over scientific theories? Answer the question for Popper and defend his theory.
i suppose that is among the goals of the series i made on my channel: Building a Proper Disposition because conceptual universals exist, ranging from basic elements and transcendental abstractions, we have to begin from the disposition that objectivity is the norm while subjective situations become a divergent from it. I think that is basically my premise, i summarize the whole as such: objective articulation is more right than subjective criticism
Inductive reasoning is simply one of our rational faculties, and in the absence of inductively acquired data, deductive logic would be useless and sterile.
I like the gentle background interference of music and voice, like a light entertainment show is on a nearby radio wavelength. As for inductive reasoning, it helps to follow arguments as they must apply to the challenge of diffusing a bomb.
That's a heck of a resumé he's got.
Thank very much, @Philosophy_Overdose! Magnificent talk! I am looking forward to hear the rest! In particular, I am quite interested in that of Nelson Goodman (who incredibly Black does not cite here!) and Sidney Morgenbesser (whose production is very very hard to find un the web).
Solid chap.
This might be a form of the "probabilistic reasoning," but I think it's fair to say that we intuitively use such reasoning in our thinking, and many inductive arguments may be naturally derived (i.e. deduced) from a kind of probabilistic premise, with a greater or smaller margin of error included almost by definition. In other words, the stochastic/probabilistic nature of reality may be a kind of metauniverse of our discourse, and many an inductive argument thus appears to be simply an appeal to this greater dimension, followed by a deduction.
Im always willing to try to give the golden mean of a brief description when people ask me for a explication of certain actions I do and attempt not to go for to long and to short of that description.
What?
@@Philosophy_Overdose in other simple terms I’m looking for a middle way to explain certain actions or events to people without being to excessive or weak in the explication. Does that make sense?
Do you think inductive reasoning can be justified?
Not in the sense of logical reasoning, I agree with Hume. He was discussing human understanding whilst Popper was not. Instead he wanted to make scientific knowledge more certain by logical reasoning.
@@MrLcowles Haven't others already done that? The question put to him was why should observation take priority over a theory. As far as I'm aware he did not have an answer for this.
@@MrLcowles More to the point how is what I said a refutation? And why was you asking for one considering the question posed? And why should scientific observations be given privillage over scientific theories? Answer the question for Popper and defend his theory.
@@MrLcowles What was Popper attempting to achieve with his theory put forward in 'Conjectures and Refutations'? And was he successful?
i suppose that is among the goals of the series i made on my channel: Building a Proper Disposition
because conceptual universals exist, ranging from basic elements and transcendental abstractions, we have to begin from the disposition that objectivity is the norm while subjective situations become a divergent from it.
I think that is basically my premise, i summarize the whole as such: objective articulation is more right than subjective criticism
Is that Sydney Morgenbesser introducing the lecture?
No.
@@Philosophy_Overdose ‘Yeah yeah.’
@@jeremybray9586Sidney has a very different voice and a distinctive accent.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Apparently he have a lecture in this series. I’ll have a look for it. I’ve read about him, would love to hear him lecture.
Inductive reasoning is simply one of our rational faculties, and in the absence of inductively acquired data, deductive logic would be useless and sterile.
"But that's slippery slope fallacy"
- English majors, always.