tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post2600909525585084455..comments2023-10-08T04:08:41.418-06:00Comments on Sporadic Maunderings: Response to a Humian ArgumentQalmleahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-23846143729415476342009-06-10T03:11:12.067-06:002009-06-10T03:11:12.067-06:00Yes, this is one of the assumptions we must make t...Yes, this is one of the assumptions we must make to use the scientific method, or to live our daily life.<br /><br />Anyone who argues against science on this basis is ultimately a hypocrite. (not accusing you of this, Qamlea) <br /><br />Questions for a hypothetical science-denier: Why do you stir sugar into your coffee every day? How do you know it will make it taste sweeter today as it did yesterday? If your child develops a dangerous reaction after every time he or she eats shrimp, will you stop feeding her shrimp, or just keep doing it?<br /><br />Science is just a formalization of the technique we ALL use every day. The technique is just common sense. It's results and implications are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-21351906844512104902009-04-20T16:16:00.000-06:002009-04-20T16:16:00.000-06:00I think we're always left with an irrational leap ...I think we're always left with an irrational leap into the future. A justified irrational leap, or maybe an unavoidable irrational leap, but a leap nonetheless.<br /><br />I do think the best argument for that leap comes from evolution. We've evolved to <EM>expect</EM> the world to behave rationally. If that were not at least a reasonable approximation of the world, we would not have evolved in such a way. It's also debatable whether evolution of <EM>any</EM> sort of life would be possible in a world with little predictability.<br /><br />The key to Hume's line of thought (as I understand it) is that we cannot use past data to <EM>deduce</EM> that the future will resemble the past. We can only <EM>infer</EM> that it will. At any moment, we might turn out to be mistaken.Qalmleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-26786951741130871192009-04-20T15:35:00.000-06:002009-04-20T15:35:00.000-06:00Isn't is rational to take into account the empiric...Isn't is rational to take into account the empirical evidence that suggests the universe is rational? Even if there is no philosophical proof.<br /><br />In any case rationally speaking, doesn't this make science valid as THE method of understanding nature as opposed to pseudoscience and religion?Rene Benthienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340596328031265224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-43903055753526917782009-04-19T22:07:00.000-06:002009-04-19T22:07:00.000-06:00Yeah, that part I agree with. There just doesn't ...Yeah, that part I agree with. There just doesn't seem to be a genuinely rational reason to think that the universe behaves rationally. At some level, there is always going to be an assumption. <br /><br />Maybe if we figure out time better, we'd have an idea <EM>why</EM> it behaves rationally. Maybe. Or maybe that would just shove the assumption back another level.Qalmleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-70998588212119630192009-04-19T20:34:00.000-06:002009-04-19T20:34:00.000-06:00Yes, the scientific method has one basic assumptio...Yes, the scientific method has one basic assumption: The universe behaves rationally.<br /><br />This assumption is based on hundreds, or thousands, of years of observation. It's held up so far.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.com