The flowing assertion was presented by blogger Rhology over
at Rhoblogy.
“the naturalistic worldview has a
dire and unresolved epistemological weakness - the problem of induction”
Rhology thinks this is a weakness for the naturalistic world
view and not for the Christian world view. Here I will attempt to explain for him how POI
is not really a problem for the naturalists WV.
It is not clear when Rhology refers to the POI if he is
talking about induction with sets (this is a crow and it is black; that is a crow
and it is black; no crow has been seen that is not black; therefore all crows
are black) or if he is referring to induction with temporal events (the
sun has risen every morning in past experience therefore the sun will rise
tomorrow). For the sake of this post, I will deal only with the POI and
temporal events.
Let’s work with the concept of the sun rising from the east
in the morning. We know that the sun is not actually rising but that the earth
is rotating. The use of the term rising is only for convention here. Rhology
wants to know how we could have knowledge that the sun will continue to rise
from the east in the future based off of our past experience. First we have to
ask our self what it would take to make the sun rising to continue doing so
into the future. What kind of universe would be needed for such a thing to
occur? Would a universe where everything was random do? I think not. We would
need to be in a universe that had some sort of uniformity to it. We can take
our past experience into account and see that the universe “was” at least
uniform in the past. We can also see that the universe “was” causal in the past.
By causal I mean that we could see cause and effect in action in the past. In
fact we can see that causality creates temporal uniformity. For each particular
action there will be a particular effect. Now if the universe was causal in the
past it must be the case that it will continue to be causal in the future since
there can be no true randomness in a causal system otherwise it would not be a
causal system.
To sum it up a bit, we have good reason to believe that the
universe was causal and uniform in the past and that the nature of a causal
system gives us good reason to believe that the universe will continue to be
causal and uniform in the future therefore we have good reason to believe that
the sun will continue to rise from the east tomorrow morning.
We can take our past experience into account and see that the universe “was” at least uniform in the past.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, you don't know that your specific observations, of which you can make a few hundred on a given topic per year out of quintillions of actual events, reliably lead you to understand the universal, the way the world is. You ASSUME it. Similarly, you ASSUME that your senses accurately observe the outside world, then you ASSUME that the senses properly report that data to your brain, then you ASSUME that the data arrives correctly, then you ASSUME that your brain properly interprets the data, then you ASSUME that you then act properly on that data. But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
Further, you have no reason to think that the natural processes you think you observe around you are in operation everywhere. You have no reason to think they have always, or at least since a very long time ago, been in operation. You ASSUME these things are true, but you can't even start to prove it.
We can also see that the universe “was” causal in the past. By causal I mean that we could see cause and effect in action in the past.
How do you see that? Were you there for a statistically significant number of them?
How does this not merely affirm the consequent? Don't give me faith, since you don't accept that my faith is valid just b/c God says so. Give me a reason to think you're right.
Peace,
Rhology
But why assume it? B/c the alternative is distasteful - solipsism - but not b/c you have an argument or evidence that your assumptions are true. You HOPE they are, and hey, you ASSUME they are, but you can give no reason for me to think they actually are true.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for myself, I don't assume that the world is more or less the way it seems because "the alternative is distasteful", but rather because it works- the Sun continues to come up, the Moon continues to orbit the Earth, and so forth. Uniformitarianism, and science in general, has a spectacular record in allowing us to make predictions and manipulate the world- religion, not so much. I don't need a "reason" to think my assumptions are true; I experience over and over that they are true, or at least true enough, often enough, to bet my life on. You seem to think that that's not enough, and that we need some sort of Authority to give us permission to believe what we can see with our own eyes. As I've said before, so much the worse for your epistemology.
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteI don’t have to “assume it". I can know with certainty that because the universe was causal in the past and in some place that it will continue to be causal in the future and every place because that is the nature of a causal system. Also, I observe this way more than a “few hundred” times per year. Everything we do and think demonstrates how causal the universe is.
JC,
ReplyDeleteI can know with certainty that because the universe was causal in the past and in some place that it will continue to be causal in the future and every place because that is the nature of a causal system.
How do you justify that jump from the specific to the more general?
zilch,
Uniformitarianism, and science in general, has a spectacular record
...at getting things wrong.
It gets things right and things wrong.
Plus, you're not really addressing the problem I'm bringing up.
I experience over and over that they are true, or at least true enough, often enough, to bet my life on.
Yes, you are betting your life and eternal fate on it.
You're not certain. You're just telling me how you prefer to think, but that doesn't tell us anything about what is true.
You seem to think that that's not enough, and that we need some sort of Authority to give us permission to believe what we can see with our own eyes
You mean like "what science says"?
Rhology,
ReplyDeleteBecause if it is causal in any specific part it MUST be causal in all parts. That is the nature of a causal system.
Is that like how if my house is brick in any specific part, it MUST be brick in all parts?
ReplyDeleteNo, because a brick cannot cause the rest of your house to be brick.
ReplyDeleteHow can one part of a system cause the rest of the system to be causal?
ReplyDeleteThat't the nature of a causal system. The whole system would have to be causal. A house is not a causal system. There is no way to equate the two and it is a false analogy to try so.
ReplyDeleteCould you please make an argument to that effect?
ReplyDeleteThe "problem" of induction is only a problem if the (undefended) standard is omnipotence. If you are happy to consider the future as a probability rather than a certainty there is no problem.
ReplyDeleteConsider that any new event is as likely to occur as the number of times the event has occured previously plus one. So where the sun "rising" is x and the number of times it has risen in the past is n the probability of it rising tomorrow is x/n+1 or extremely likely.
If Rho wants certainty let him defend his requirement for omnipotence.
If you are happy to consider the future as a probability rather than a certainty there is no problem.
ReplyDeleteSaying it's probable also begs the question.
So where the sun "rising" is x and the number of times it has risen in the past is n the probability of it rising tomorrow is x/n+1 or extremely likely.
You don't know how many times it has risen in the past.
"Saying it's probable also begs the question."
ReplyDeleteNo it does not. Probability is defended axiomatically - it is a deductive system.
"You don't know how many times it has risen in the past"
This is quite clearly a naked assertion. For something like the sun 'rising' its actually pretty easy. This includes if were being generous and, for some unknown reason, you disregard the rest of recorded history as unreliable. You simply count the number of years you've been alive, times it by 365 and adjust for leap years.
I don't want to be antagonistic here, so please take this the right way, but it seems on the surface that you don't actually know what the "problem" of induction is.
Please give me a reason, then, to think it is probable, that doesn't beg the question by appealing to the past to inform us about the future.
ReplyDeleteWas Hume wrong about this?
Now, as for my statement about how you don't know how many times it has risen in the past being a naked assertion, let's turn that around.
Atheist says to Christian: "You don't know that God exists."
Christian: This is quite clearly a naked assertion. For something like God existing it's actually pretty easy.
So OK, let's play this out. I am a history skeptic. Prove to me that the sun has been rising in a way similar to how it rose this morning, starting 300 years ago.
Please show me where in recorded history it was recorded that the sun rose. Please let me know how many times it was noted.
As for:
you disregard the rest of recorded history as unreliable.
That's just an argument from unsavory consequences. Yes, that may be the case.
Now that we've got that out of the way, please give me the evidence I"m asking for. If you can't, why should anyone believe it? Just b/c it's convenient? Are we after convenience or after truth?
Alan, you are spectacularly out of your depth here.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get off track so I'll number our conversation.
ReplyDelete"Please give me a reason, then, to think it is probable, that doesn't beg the question"
1. I think you are confused. The deductive process and axioms, by definition, do not beg the question. Is it that you are unfamiliar with how probability is axiomatically defended?
2. "Was Hume wrong about this?" Yes, but that seems harsh. Think of him as Newton to Einstein - its probably better described as uninformed.
3. RE: naked assertion. It was my claim that you argued without support. It seems now your support is using reductio ad absurdem to prove that the sun rising has as much evidence as your deity. Is that correct?
4. RE: Historicity of the sun rising. I could point you to weather statistics but this whole line of thinking is a red herring. You have missed the point that probability works off however many previous occurrences (the population) you are willing to accept. Hence why I was careful to say "even if" which you seem to have left out.
In any case it does not matter if you accept records (or in this case physics too) neither changes the deductive nature of probability.
"Now that we've got that out of the way, please give me the evidence I"m asking for. If you can't, why should anyone believe it? Just b/c it's convenient? Are we after convenience or after truth?"
I trust you now see why these have no baring on the argument, but naturally we are interested in truth.
Take care.
vagon,
ReplyDelete1. Please, enlighten us all and we'll see.
2. Why do you think Hume was wrong? Please give your argument.
3. No, that is not correct. My argument is that IF ATHEISM IS TRUE there is no way to know that the sun has been rising all this time.
I believe there's tons of evidence for God, but that's actually pretty irrelevant right now.
4. You'll note that I intentionally framed the question such that "weather statistics" wouldn't be possible. How would that work 300 years before now? Where are those statistics?
I trust you now see why these have no baring on the argument
I didn't bring it up, Alex did.
"I didn't bring it up, Alex did. "
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't.
Alan, are you enjoying drowning as you sink further and further in your blindly apparent ignorance?
1. That would be quite a stretch given the space. Here's a quality link instead: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/
ReplyDelete2. I cant tell if you're serious. Even if Hume was right, you would still be wrong so I am unsure how me showing how Hume was wrong assists your argument. Hume's solution was that induction was pragmatic. So his solution was in the right direction but obviously unsupported, he knew this himself.
3. I still do not understand. I don't see any support for this conclusion. Regardless of theological belief probability still works.
4. The meteorology department or even newspapers come to mind. But, again it doesn't matter how big the population is. If you are unwilling to accept a number of instances of the sun "rising" you don't have to. It just means you have a weaker amount of certainty because the sample has more weighting. Have you heard of Bayes theorem?
--
Look Rho I'm honestly not trying to be antagonistic, but it seems like you are arguing from a pre-1750s philosophical view of epistemology. I have some questions which might speed this up:
A) Have you read and understood An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding?
B) Do you understand the difference between the conditions for induction and the mechanism itself?
C) If you have not heard of Kolmogorov's axioms, should you be making sweeping statements about induction?
If you like I can suggest some books that could bring you up to speed.
Hello everyone, i'm Linda Harry from United State i was diagnosed with Parkinson Disease for over 6 years which made me loose my job and my relationship with my Fiance after he discovered that i was having Parkinson, he departed from me, and i tried all my best to make him stays, but he neglected me until a friend of mine from UK told me Great healer, who will restore my life back with his powerful healing herbal medicine. then he sent me his email address to contact him- drimolaherbalmademedicine@gmail.com. and i quickly contacted him, and he said my condition can be solved, that he will treat the disease immediately only if i can accept trust on him and accept his terms and condition, i Agreed because i was so much in need of help by all means, so i did all he instructed me to do. And surprisingly after two weeks, He sent me a text, that i should hurry up to the hospital for a checkup, which i truly did, i confirm from my doctor that i am now ( PARKINSON NEGATIVE) my eyes filled with tears and joy, crying heavily because truly the disease deprived me of many things from my life, This is a Miracle, dr imoloa also uses his powerful herbal medicine to cure the following diseases: lupus disease, mouth ulcer, mouth cancer, body pain, fever, hepatitis A.B.C., syphilis, diarrhea, HIV/AIDS, Huntington's Disease, back acne, Chronic renal failure, addison disease, Chronic Pain, Crohn's Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Fibromyalgia, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, fungal nail disease, Lyme Disease, Celia disease, Lymphoma, Major Depression, Malignant Melanoma, Mania, Melorheostosis, Meniere's Disease, Mucopolysaccharidosis , Multiple Sclerosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Alzheimer's Disease, parkison disease, vaginal cancer, epilepsy, Anxiety Disorders, Autoimmune Disease, Back Pain, Back Sprain, Bipolar Disorder, Brain Tumour, Malignant, Bruxism, Bulimia, Cervical Disk Disease, cardiovascular disease, Neoplasms, chronic respiratory disease, mental and behavioural disorder, Cystic Fibrosis, Hypertension, Diabetes, asthma, Inflammatory autoimmune-mediated arthritis. chronic kidney disease, inflammatory joint disease, impotence, feta alcohol spectrum, Dysthymic Disorder, Eczema, tuberculosis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, constipation, inflammatory bowel disease, bone cancer, lung cancer. contact him on email- drimolaherbalmademedicine@gmail.com. and also on whatssap- +2347081986098
ReplyDelete