[lit-ideas] Re: Back to Popper (and further back to Hume)

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:46:10 +0000 (GMT)

Hume is not consistent a philosopher and so quoting him can be used to
support this and the opposite: for example, his logical attack on induction
is at odds with his defence of it as a _well-based_ psychological habit.

--- Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hume's answer to 'What can the subject say about the probability of
> something's
> being in the third box (and what) or of its being empty?' would be:
> 'nothing.'
> And rightly so. To what does Donal's experiment want the subject to assign
> a
> 'probability'?

Rightly so indeed: there is no inductive probability. There is just as much,
or little, chance of the third box containing the following
b.a white swan
c.a black swan
d.something that is not a swan

This is the _logical_ point. The given extended quotation from Hume does
nothing to alter this and so offers no _logical_ support to John or Omar
(much as it may offer them a psychological prop).


All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease 
of use." - PC Magazine 
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: