The 'philosophical debate' thread.

[littleknowitall]

sorry im so late replying dude, just searching through old threads and found this, yes, i am satisfied with your answer....and your arguement, well done *shakes hand*
now kick us off....*glares*

[Thom Yorke]

"Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties, and both of these are inadequate. The two sorts are demonstrative reasoning, and probable reasoning. With regards to demonstrative reasoning, Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular. Turning to probable reasoning, Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past, as this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question: it would be circular reasoning. Thus no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences."

I love this. Probably my favourite philosophical theory. It is illogical to assume that history will repeat itself based on history repeating itself before. If I say that the earth will suddenly fall out of orbit tomorrow, is it any less logical than saying it will stay in orbit?

[Thom Yorke]

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

"Hume's argument is that we cannot rationally justify the claim that nature will continue to be uniform, as justification comes in only two varieties, and both of these are inadequate. The two sorts are demonstrative reasoning, and probable reasoning. With regards to demonstrative reasoning, Hume argues that the uniformity principle cannot be demonstrated, as it is "consistent and conceivable" that nature might stop being regular. Turning to probable reasoning, Hume argues that we cannot hold that nature will continue to be uniform because it has been in the past, as this is using the very sort of reasoning (induction) that is under question: it would be circular reasoning. Thus no form of justification will rationally warrant our inductive inferences."

I love this. Probably my favourite philosophical theory. It is illogical to assume that history will repeat itself based on history repeating itself before. If I say that the earth will suddenly fall out of orbit tomorrow, is it any less logical than saying it will stay in orbit?

Anybody?

[Paedantic Basterd]

The latest post in this thread was four years ago.

And what's more: We have an entire forum dedicated to discussing these issues.

No harm in starting a proper thread!