|
19463
|
Induction assumes some uniformity in nature, or that in some respects the future is like the past [Ayer]
|
|
Full Idea:
In all inductive reasoning we make the assumption that there is a measure of uniformity in nature; or, roughly speaking, that the future will, in the appropriate respects, resemble the past.
|
|
From:
A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.viii)
|
|
A reaction:
I would say that nature is 'stable'. Nature changes, so a global assumption of total uniformity is daft. Do we need some global uniformity assumptions, if the induction involved is local? I would say yes. Are all inductions conditional on this?
|
|
19459
|
To say 'I am not thinking' must be false, but it might have been true, so it isn't self-contradictory [Ayer]
|
|
Full Idea:
To say 'I am not thinking' is self-stultifying since if it is said intelligently it must be false: but it is not self-contradictory. The proof that it is not self-contradictory is that it might have been false.
|
|
From:
A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.iii)
|
|
A reaction:
If it doesn't imply a contradiction, then it is not a necessary truth, which is what it is normally taken to be. Is 'This is a sentence' necessarily true? It might not have been one, if the rules of English syntax changed recently.
|
|
19460
|
'I know I exist' has no counterevidence, so it may be meaningless [Ayer]
|
|
Full Idea:
If there is no experience at all of finding out that one is not conscious, or that one does not exist, ..it is tempting to say that sentences like 'I exist', 'I am conscious', 'I know that I exist' do not express genuine propositions.
|
|
From:
A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.iii)
|
|
A reaction:
This is, of course, an application of the somewhat discredited verification principle, but the fact that strictly speaking the principle has been sort of refuted does not mean that we should not take it seriously, and be influenced by it.
|
|
19462
|
Induction passes from particular facts to other particulars, or to general laws, non-deductively [Ayer]
|
|
Full Idea:
Inductive reasoning covers all cases in which we pass from a particular statement of fact, or set of them, to a factual conclusion which they do not formally entail. The inference may be to a general law, or by analogy to another particular instance.
|
|
From:
A.J. Ayer (The Problem of Knowledge [1956], 2.viii)
|
|
A reaction:
My preferred definition is 'learning from experience' - which I take to be the most rational behaviour you could possibly imagine. I don't think a definition should be couched in terms of 'objects' or 'particulars'.
|
|
16975
|
Essences are used to explain natural kinds, modality, and causal powers [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
Essences are supposed to do a lot of explanatory work: natural kinds can be identified in terms of their essences, metaphysical modality can be reduced to essence, the causal power of objects can be explained with the help of essence.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 1)
|
|
A reaction:
Natural kinds and modality are OK with me, but I'm dubious about the third one. If an essence explains something's causal powers, I have no idea what an essence might be. Essence are largely characterised in terms of causal powers.
|
|
16977
|
If essence is modal and laws are necessary, essentialist knowledge is found by scientists [Tahko]
|
|
Full Idea:
If essence is conceived in terms of modality and the laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, it seems that the laws of nature constitute essentialist knowledge, so the discovery of essences is mostly due to scientists.
|
|
From:
Tuomas E. Tahko (The Epistemology of Essence (draft) [2013], 2.1)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems muddled to me. The idea that the laws themselves are essences is way off target. No one thinks all knowledge of necessities is essentialist. Mumford, for example, doesn't even believe in laws.
|