『69 Induction is Valid -- There Is No "Problem of Induction"』のカバーアート

69 Induction is Valid -- There Is No "Problem of Induction"

69 Induction is Valid -- There Is No "Problem of Induction"

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

今ならプレミアムプランが3カ月 月額99円

2026年5月12日まで。4か月目以降は月額1,500円で自動更新します。

概要

 Induction is valid. Hume was wrong: there is no “problem of induction." Inductions validly and logically formed are contextual absolutes. We can and should confidently and certainly form inductions, use them, and rely on them. Necessity is in experience. It is in reality. It has epistemic and metaphysical priority over anyone’s imaginings and ramblings. “Practical scientists [and adults] who rashly allow themselves to listen to [most modern] philosophers are likely to go away in a discouraged frame of mind, convinced that there is no logical foundation for the things they do, that all their alleged scientific laws are without justification, and that they are living in a world of naïve illusion. Of course, once they get out into the sunlight again, they know that this is not so, that scientific principles do work, bridges stay up, eclipses occur on schedule, and atomic bombs go off.“Nevertheless, it is very unsatisfactory that no generally acceptable theory of scientific inference has yet been put forward. … Mistakes are often made which would presumably not have been made if a consistent and satisfactory basic philosophy had been followed.” —An Introduction to Scientific Research by E. Bright Wilson, Professor Chemistry at Harvard. (About Edgar Bright Wilson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Bright_Wilson)"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." —Albert Einstein (Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem]. See: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)"I should even think that in making the celestial material alterable, I contradict the doctrine of Aristotle much less than do those people who still want to keep the sky inalterable; for I am sure that he never took its inalterability to be as certain as the fact that all human reasoning must be placed second to direct experience."—From the Second Letter of Galileo Galilei to Mark Welser on Sunspots, p. 118 of Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, translated by Stillman Drake, (c) 1957 by Stillman Drake, published by Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Garden City, New York“Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.“Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.“Rule 3. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.“Rule 4. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.”—Newton’s Rules of Reasoning in Science. See: http://apex.ua.edu/uploads/2/8/7/3/28731065/four_rules_of_reasoning_apex_website.pdf"This is the case when both the cause and effect are present to the senses. Let us now see upon what our inference is founded, when we conclude from the one that the other has existed or will exist. Suppose I see a ball moving in a streight line towards another, I immediately conclude, that they will shock, and that the second will be in motion. This is the inference from cause to effect; and of this nature are all our reasonings in the conduct of life: on this is founded all our belief in history: and from hence is derived all philosophy, excepting only geometry and arithmetic. If we can explain the inference from the shock of two balls, we shall be able to account for this operation of the mind in all instances."Were a man, such as Adam, created in the full vigour of understanding, without experience, he would never be able to infer motion in the second ball from the motion and impulse of the first. It is not any thing that reason sees in the cause, which makes us infer the effect. Such an inference, were it possible, would amount to a demonstration, as being founded merely on the comparison of ideas. But no inference from cause to effect amounts to a demonstration. Of which there is this evident proof. The mind can always conceive any effect to follow from any ...
まだレビューはありません