
The Problem of Induction (1967) - dil8
http://www.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/articles/salmon.html
======
dpierce9
A bit of background: Hume was an empiricist, he thought that knowledge of the
world comes from our experience of the world (i.e. experimentation) along with
logical reasoning. But he was also concerned about the relationship between
experience and knowledge, that is, why is it that we think some experiences
produce knowledge and others do not.

This is where the problem of induction comes from: using the tools that
produce knowledge (experience and reason), is it possible to prove-out the
required connection between experience and knowledge and if it isn't what do
we do?

------
WhoBeI
This is a philosophical question about knowledge, what it is, and how we
arrive at it OR it's a linguistic question about the meaning of the word
'knowledge' and what it implies.

In summary: It is not possible to determine the cause of an effect when you
only know the effect. For instance, the theory of evolution is not certain
because we can't go back and check if we are correct in our assumptions. So
how can it offer knowledge if we can't prove it's true?

~~~
sjtrny
One way is to eliminate all other possible options. I'm not quite sure that
the evolution example is a good one. We have the opportunity to observe some
parts of evolution.

~~~
WhoBeI
That's the silly part of the question. Basically Hume and others are saying
that because we don't know every single little piece of information and
because there is the possibility, however remote, of an unknown we can't be
sure our conclusion is true.

So although we have seen evidence for it time and time again. Even though we
have excluded countless of other possibilities Hume would still sit in the
back row muttering "there COULD be a different explanation".

Like I said, silly.

~~~
punee
Yes, there could.

It's not "silly", it's the basis of what separates science from religion.
There's no final answer. Everything can be questioned.

It's funny how purported skeptics are so quick to look for eternal truths.

~~~
WhoBeI
Yes, everything can be questioned including this theory. I'm saying that
focusing our efforts on all the different ways we could be wrong doesn't
really help us move forward. So it would be "silly" to spend our time on that
endeavor instead of trying to apply the theory to as many scenarios as
possible to see if it works.

But, yeah, maybe using the word "silly" was a bit harsh. I could have written
"not productive" instead.

Besides, the article is not a scientific one it's a philosophical one. In
science you arrive at a conclusion using theories and observations while in
philosophy you arrive at conclusions by theories and consensus.

------
lisper
David Deutsch has a compelling (IMHO) defense of Popper in his book "The
Fabric of Reality" chapter 7. Recommended reading.

------
Randgalt
Solved here: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Evidence-Senses-Realist-
Perception...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Evidence-Senses-Realist-
Perception/dp/0807114766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402518006&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Evidence+of+the+Senses-+by+David+Kelley)

------
istjohn
An honest question--because I don't know: Has the philosophy of science in its
long history produced anything that has proven useful in the practice of
science?

I do understand that some people may consider the philosophy of science
intrinsically valuable.

~~~
cpa
Yes, absolutely. The modern definition of "proof" and of "true". Logic was
considered philosophy in the early 20th century. And the works of Russell, for
example, helped define what we see today as a convincing proof. Basically, 120
years ago, math was not as rigorous as it is now (Cauchy is a prime example).

Also, philosophy of science is not necessarily about producing useful stuff
for the practice of science, but usually helps better understand the
relationship between humans and knowledge. It allows scientists to take a step
back and see the big picture before diving back into their practice. As such,
it shapes the way we think of and do science, and allows for better questions
to be asked, and gives better ways to frame those questions.

~~~
AimHere
Aren't those about the philosophy of mathematics, rather than that of science?

At this level, mathematics is a discipline that's entirely unlike science, in
that (at least if you believe it's philosophers) science _doesn 't_ prove
anything true, it just has a bunch of competing theories some of which get
disproved by experiments.

~~~
cpa
It's definitely not just about mathematics. What the scientific community
considers acceptable (as in publishable in a good journal) proof has been
shaped by the last 100 years of logic practice. Yes, we had rational reasoning
before 1900, but it did not look anything like today's "rationality". We used
to do piggy-back mathematical models to experiments; now we build from the
ground up models and we try to make sure that they match our experiments. This
is basically the mindset change that happened in the math community when
logicians said that "it's not math if it doesn't start with axioms" (no, I'm
not actually quoting anyone).

Also, the second paragraph of my first comment is not about logic.

------
tokai
why_i_subscribe_to_pragmatism.pdf

------
zatkin
Much easier to read if you view the source of the link.

