You are given a proposition: "All swans are white". You are given three boxes to test the proposition. You open Box 1: in it is a white swan. Box 2: is empty. Box 3: you are not allowed to open. Until, that is, you have found a way to say _as a probability_ what should _probably_ be in the box.
That is Donal's original problem. It seemed on the face of it to be aboutprobabilities, at least that's what one might have thought upon seeing that one
was challenged to say 'as a probability' what should 'probably' be in the box.Various people have pointed that the situation was underdescribed and that more about the context of the problem, its setting, needed to be said, if one wanted
to talk about probabilities here at all. For this they were called prats and twits and showered with the sort of abuse that one usually finds only on the letters page of the London Review of Books. One person, myself, said that theanswer, according to Hume, would be that one could say nothing. Donal seemed to
agree with that but sounded peeved that someone should have pointed it out. He made several claims about Hume's philosophy (e.g. that Hume's logical misgivings about the course of nature were incompatible with Hume's psychological account of why we believe it will remain the same) that were to say the least misinformed. There's considerable inductive evidence that as aninterpreter of Hume, Donal is not to be trusted. I don't want to get into that.
Donal has set up a phony problem. He asks for the probability of something and then denies that there is any probability to be assessed. Most of his lubricious posts are like that. The funny ones are indeed funny but the philosophical ones leave much to be desired. Robert Paul Reed College ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html