Humean scepticism
from /villagepump/Humean-skepticism.
- Is there no rational basis for causal relationship, but merely a feeling that there is a causal relationship? The idea that
It is not possible that causality can be justified by induction from observation and experience. because the natural principle of natural uniformity on which induction is based is not actually observed, experienced, or > argued for.
- Does this mean you think this is true for physics or something else?
- Yes.induction の basis となる「 principle of natural uniformity 」が論証されてないって指摘は
- 1: "I did experiment A and got result B."
- 2: 1 over and over again.
- 3: Scientists conclude that "doing A will result in B".
- Pointing out that there is a logical leap between this 2 and 3.
The term "principle of natural uniformity" or simply "principle of the uniformity of nature" is used in the world of [philosophy of science The term is used in the world of philosophy of science to describe the assumption that "events in nature do not occur in a completely random manner, that there is some order to them, and that under similar conditions, the same phenomena should repeat themselves.
- I think modern physicists also see it more as "it is abnormal to claim contrary to this without checking it because it keeps being experimentally confirmed" rather than claiming it to be true, so I wonder if it is Humean in that respect.
- principle of natural uniformity は流石に仮定してるからヒューム的ではないのでは
- If you deny this, I don't see how science can be established.
- Yes.induction の basis となる「 principle of natural uniformity 」が論証されてないって指摘は
- David Hume April 26, 1711 (Julian calendar) - August 25, 1776 (Gregorian calendar)
- https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/デイヴィッド%E3%83%BBヒューム
While he believes that there is no guarantee in principle that human nature can reach certain knowledge, he avoids the radical skepticism of Pyrrhon and, influenced by Sextus, develops a relatively moderate skepticism that recognizes mathematics as the only discursively certain discipline, thus demonstrating the limits of human knowledge and empiricism.
- Math admits.
- Newton 1643-1727 mechanics knew at this time? Skepticism - Wikipedia
- https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/デイヴィッド%E3%83%BBヒューム
Are you saying that two events (A, B) have no effect on each other, but when people see something like B happening after A happens, they find causality between A and B?
When supermarket A closes at 9:00 and supermarket B closes at 9:15 are adjacent to each other, some people might interpret this as if supermarket A closes, supermarket B closes (causality).
This range is Yes: "When people see something like A happens and then B happens, they find causality between A and B."
- Isn't it possible that everything that people think is causal is simply something that they see happen back to back and assume is causal? Isn't it possible that there is no such thing as causality? Skepticism
- For example, when you see a sugar cube melt and lose its shape when you pour water on it, many people tend to think that the sugar cube melted because of the water pouring on it, but what is the basis for the claim that the water pouring is the cause? But what is the basis for the claim that it was caused by pouring water on the sugar cube?
- Hume: "That's your opinion, isn't it? Do you have any basis for that?"
- I see. Does it matter here whether the two events do or do not act on each other?
To explain this without using the word "causality."
- When we observe "A happens, then B happens," then humans tend to infer that "B happens" after "A happens."
- But this is the same as analogy, just finding patterns
- awareness that
- +1
I think this kind of thing actually happens a lot, so it's quite possible to be right when you do Humean skepticism.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ヒューム的懐疑 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.