a reply to: Ghost147
Again, you're trying to make a point here about how nothing can really be absolute, even though that point is obvious. So why make the point in the
That wasn't the point. The point was that there is no certainty at all without an explanation for the problem of induction. Maybe you should have read
the full post before responding as I discussed probability in this section as well, and I stated that the problem of induction ruins any logical
reason for believing we can gain knowledge from probability.
What are you even talking about? Induction intrinsically uses probability! We have statistics for a reason, it's not to claim something is definitely
going to happen because we have a record of it usually happening, it claims that something will probably happen because it usually happened
It is completely logical to accept statistical evidence to base future events on.
Yes inductive reasoning uses probability to reach a general conclusion, but probability also uses inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion in
statistics so no it isn't logical at all that is why people say "induction is the wonder of Science, and the scandal of Philosophy." You're first
three responses are all about how all I am saying is that nothing is absolutely certain. This is from the OP:
Now one might argue that we do not know anything for certain, but we can infer what is most probable, yet the problem of induction even applies here.
To say something is probable is to make the claim that some occurrence of A is often associated with some outcome B, therefore we have good reason to
believe that an occurrence of A will be accompanied by B, but this again begs the question. The questions would the become what reason do we have for
believing some sequence of past observed instances in time will gives us any information about a fresh instance in time. The instinct again is to say
because it always has, yet this is not a logically sound basis so we must look else where.
So no that was not my claim. My claim was that without a justification for inductive reasoning we have no certainty. We would have no logical reason
to "look both ways before we cross the street". No logical reason for why we wake up everyday without the fear of floating off the earth or being
crushed by a sudden shift in gravity.
In your very first paragraph you couple 'Science' as being a world view. That's not me being careless with my reading, it's pretty evident that is
what you meant. If you truly believe that science is not a world view, then simply acknowledge your first paragraph is written in a misleading way.
Its not and the quoted position explains why it is not. From OP:
Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. It is at the foundation of science and all most every act that we do, yet most
world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction.
Now lets look at this sentence. Inductive reasoning is ultimately the foundation of all world views. Meaning inductive reasoning is a foundational
belief for everyone, including myself. Now ask why is inductive reasoning a foundational belief for everyone? Because it is at the foundation of
Science(the process we use to gain knowledge about the world) and all most every act we do(Such as avoiding fire or breathing in copious amounts of
water). If I was going to talk about a world view their I wouldn't have used the word Science I would have used the word Naturalism or Materialism.
Then we come to the statement that most world views do not have the foundation to justify belief in the principle of induction. This should show you
that I do not think induction is the only foundational belief in a world view, but it is definitely a part of all of our foundations as we use it
constantly to function within reality it may not be the lowest portion of the foundation but it is definitely in there somewhere..
So you're saying that Inductive reasoning is the foundation to all world views, but not yours?
I refer you to the last statement.
I can't tell if you're professing your belief that there are "Functional Designs by nature [that] are made with the intent to function in a particular
way." or you believe that scientists claim that? could you elaborate?
Because scientists don't claim that Nature is capable of intending anything. It's not a conscious thing.
Simple misunderstanding. I did not mean nature as in Mother Nature. Maybe it would be easier if I said the essence of a functional design is that it
is made with the intent to function in a particular way.
The eye has a purpose, to see. It had no planning, it had no intention, and we can see how it arises without magic. Thus, it cuts out the need for a
I would disagree with that statement. You don't need magic but you do need to design to say it has a purpose which is the reason for which something
is done or created or for which something exists. I think what you meant to say was the eye has a function and that function is to produce sight. The
fact that the eye functions as a vehicle for sight doesn't disprove the existence or need for a designer. If you and I had never seen a watch before
we could study it and determine the metal it was made of the way its gears works and the way the hands moved but would those mechanisms every bring us
to the idea that the watch was designed? No because when talking about a designer you are talking about the existence of an agent and the only thing I
can think of the denotes the existence of an agent is the existence of information.
But don't go around claiming that this god built anything in this universe other than whatever came before it, because we do actually know the
naturally occurring processes that require to form the things such as planets, galaxies, variation in life, so on and so forth
This was not an argument for the existence of God. It was my answer to the OP. It wasn't me trying to convince you of anything. Cool you know how
certain things in the world function, and you are saying because you know how they function they could not have been designed to function that way.
Lets use that logic on something else, like a computer. There is a computer you study it and figure out exactly the way everything works. By your
logic we would have to conclude that because we know the way a computer functions it couldn't have been designed to function that way and did not have
a designer. Obviously that would be wrong.