[lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 14:51:24 -0500
Donal: To be clear I am:-
a) inviting people to defend, articulately, inductive
probability;
b) taking the position that there is no such thing.
How do weather forecasts fit into this project? Exit polls
in elections?
Good examples of induction? For example,
(a) Donal went to Manhattan and ate bagels at H&H Bagels.
(b) Therefore there are bagels in Manhattan.
Also, Draconian measures? For example:
(a) al-Qaeda people are evil and should instantly be shot in
the forehead with a .357 magnum bullet.
(b) Ali is definitely al-Qaeda but doesn't seem to be evil.
(c) Ali should be shot in the forehead with a .357 magnum
bullet anyway, because inductive probability is not to be
trusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
- Follow-Ups:
- [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- From: Donal McEvoy
- References:
- [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- From: Donal McEvoy
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- » [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- From: Donal McEvoy
- [lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)
- From: Donal McEvoy