Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What's the point of support? (was Re: How to live without inductivism)

Expand Messages
  • Peter D
    ... You haven t established that all evidence in general supports all theories. You have put forward a special case that supports two contradictory theories.
    Message 1 of 448 , Nov 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Oct 28, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Peter D wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Peter D wrote:
      > >>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote:
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>> On Oct 27, 2010, at 4:04 AM, Peter D wrote:
      > >>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@> wrote:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>> The problem with the forgery is not that a lack of certainty, it's that your notion of "support" supports both the forgery and the genuineness theories
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> You haven't shown that all evidence supports all theories. "An IOU exists" is a special case. "A handwriting expert has testified
      > >>>>> that the IOU is genuine" does not support both theories. "A forger
      > >>>>> has confessed to forging it" does not support both theories
      > >>>>
      > >>>> It's possible that a handwriting expert testifies but is mistaken.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> So his testimony is *consistent* with both theories.
      > >>>
      > >>> It's not if it is true.
      > >>
      > >> We never know what is true like that, so anything that depends on that fact, which is impossible to know, can't be part of how we get knowledge.
      > >
      > > You are passing easily from "impossible to know with certainty"
      > > to "impossible to know". If knowledge can be conjecture, it can
      > > be probable-but-less-than-certain.
      > >
      > >> Agreed?
      > >>
      > >> In other words, we have to figure things out using only fallible evidence. When I think I see a cat, I might have hallucinated. My evidence is consistent with there being or not being a cat.
      > >
      > > If you are going to dismiss highly probable evidence on the basis
      > > that it is not certain, I cannot see how you are ever going to figure things out using fallible evidene.
      >
      > We *cannot* figure things out with support using fallible evidence. That's one of the points here.
      >
      > But we can use fallible evidence in criticism.
      >
      > All this talk of certainty is a red herring. The problem is that *invalid methods are invalid*. It's not that it isn't guaranteed to work, but that it simply doesn't work. Because the information we have (fallible evidence) is consistent with both theories,

      You haven't established that all evidence in general supports all theories. You have put forward a special case that supports two
      contradictory theories. You have also tries to argue
      against support on the grounds that all evidence is fallible.
      Whilst that is a sufficiently general argument, is also
      counts against the use of evidence in refutation.

      >the method of claiming it supports one over the other is *arbitrary*.

      I can see no grounds for that. Inductivists have any number
      of ways of putting an apriori weighting on theories.

      >You could pick either theory to say is supported, and your chances of being right are not high but quite low (we're discussing two theories but remember there are infinitely many -- arbitrarily choosing from an infinite set does not get you a high probability of success).
      >
      > So without support, what can we do? Criticize bad explanations.
      >
      > Let's consider the example in Fabric: someone proposes that eating grass cures colds (the mild illness).

      There is no support for it. That there is no support counts
      against. That would not be possible unless having support
      counts for it.
    • hibbsa
      ... for ... sort of ... Ayn ... It s not mooching when you already paid more than that to the Government in taxes for stuff you didn t want, and now you re
      Message 448 of 448 , Jan 20, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Jan 19, 2012, at 1:36 PM, hibbsa wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > Someone said this about Rand toward the end of her life.
        > >
        > > Maybe it isn't true. But it is is, what are the implications of this
        for
        > > her personally in respect of her philosophical views? Presumably she
        > > would have refused another person in the same circumstances this
        sort of
        > > state sponsored support?
        > >
        > > "An interview recently surfaced that was conducted in 1998 by the
        Ayn
        > > Rand Institute with a social worker who says she helped Rand and her
        > > husband, Frank O'Connor, sign up for Social Security and Medicare in
        > > 1974.
        > >
        > > She did so under the name of Ann O'Connor. A heavy smoker, Ayn was
        > > operated for lung cancer in 1974, in 1982, she expired from heart
        > > failure, apparently while on Medicare."
        >
        > There's no consequences. It isn't immoral to accept what you're owed.
        It's not mooching when you already paid more than that to the Government
        in taxes for stuff you didn't want, and now you're getting part of it
        back.
        >
        > *Not* accepting social security would be an altruistic stand.
        >
        >
        > -- Elliot Temple
        > http://beginningofinfinity.com/
        >


        OK this makes sense. Rand Rocks!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.