[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
a.nothing
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).
Donal
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease
of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
