Lets Argue

[Kashmiri Pandit]

While preparing for my exams , I came across an interesting topic where Hume challenged Science by criticizing Induction ( A form of Logic ) .

According to him , " Are we justified in reasoning from repeated instances of which we have experience to other instances ( Conclusions ) of which we have no experience . "

Through this he criticized Methods adopted by various Sciences , Sociology and other fields . Though he failed to explain this phenomena i.e leap from observable to un-observable or unobserved but he labelled this practice of ours as " Mental Habit " or " Animal instinct " .

What do you think ?
Experience can vouch for the conclusion but not always .

@Zibago @Nilgiri @Chinese-Dragon @Chinese Bamboo @Godman @Gibbs @BDforever

 

[BDforever]

According to him , " Are we justified in reasoning from repeated instances of which we have experience to other instances ( Conclusions ) of which we have no experience . "

@Zibago @Nilgiri @Chinese-Dragon @Chinese Bamboo @Godman @Gibbs @BDforever

there is a term called 'prejudgment' which affects our reasoning and decision making that we gain from past experience. We try to find similarities with past experience.
Past experience does help to get some point but when we entirely judge based on past even though new experience might not be same, that causes problem.


Now shuuuuuuu, I am rozadar and it is first day, brain is not working properly. dimagh mat kha
welcome back, long time no seen, shaadi hua kiya ?

 

[Kashmiri Pandit]

there is a term called 'prejudgment' which affects our reasoning and decision making that we gain from past experience. We try to find similarities with past experience.
Past experience does help to get some point but when we entirely judge based on past even though new experience might not be same, that causes problem.


Now shuuuuuuu, I am rozadar and it is first day, brain is not working properly. dimagh mat kha
welcome back, long time no seen, shaadi hua kiya ?

Oh ! Ramadan Mubarak

Na ! Exams

 

[BDforever]

Oh ! Ramadan Mubarak

Na ! Exams

ahaha Ramadan Mubarak
and Mubarak to Exams too

 

[RAMPAGE]

 

[Zibago]

I call it denial to justify a sort of habit of the past you deny that the new thing is fact by pointless rebutling
Its 43 C outside my eyes feel watery ｡･ﾟﾟ･(>д<)･ﾟﾟ･｡

 

[Godman]

While preparing for my exams , I came across an interesting topic where Hume challenged Science by criticizing Induction ( A form of Logic ) .

According to him , " Are we justified in reasoning from repeated instances of which we have experience to other instances ( Conclusions ) of which we have no experience . "

Through this he criticized Methods adopted by various Sciences , Sociology and other fields . Though he failed to explain this phenomena i.e leap from observable to un-observable or unobserved but he labelled this practice of ours as " Mental Habit " or " Animal instinct " .

What do you think ?
Experience can vouch for the conclusion but not always .

@Zibago @Nilgiri @Chinese-Dragon @Chinese Bamboo @Godman @Gibbs @BDforever

I will have to become a philosopher to answer this

 

[Nilgiri]

While preparing for my exams , I came across an interesting topic where Hume challenged Science by criticizing Induction ( A form of Logic ) .

According to him , " Are we justified in reasoning from repeated instances of which we have experience to other instances ( Conclusions ) of which we have no experience . "

Through this he criticized Methods adopted by various Sciences , Sociology and other fields . Though he failed to explain this phenomena i.e leap from observable to un-observable or unobserved but he labelled this practice of ours as " Mental Habit " or " Animal instinct " .

What do you think ?
Experience can vouch for the conclusion but not always .

@Zibago @Nilgiri @Chinese-Dragon @Chinese Bamboo @Godman @Gibbs @BDforever

Yes we are justified, as long as we accept there are limits and no conclusion derived is absolute (epsitemic uncertainty, especially when broadening the logic set). Inductive reasoning must always be prepared to be challenged and overturned when new evidence/experience arises. This is one of its differences from deductive reasoning which had defined

If you read what survives of Aristotle's works, it is explained quite clearly.....without the mystical hokus pokus Plato inserted into his work...or the tragic curse Socrates left in his.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Argument?