A recent visitor to Choosing Hats who goes by the name “noen” made a few comments which imply that he does not believe the material on the site is up to his ‘standards’. For example in response to the post here he wrote, “Not really impressed” and “The argument is without merit”. Of course I doubt that the post was written with the intention of impressing noen, and he merely asserts that “the argument” (it is unclear what argument he is referring to) is “without merit” but never explains why he thinks this way.
He also commented here to ask, “Are you picking on Objectivists?” and to hand wave Objectivism with, “Talk about low hanging fruit”. Of course it is hardly true that I have been “picking on Objectivists” and I have not seen a large number of responses to Objectivism nor any kind of refutation of the position by noen.
These comments pale in comparison to the one noen left on the post found here where he writes as though he is an authority in the area of physics.
“The universe consists of particles moving in lines of force or whatever physics determines ultimate reality is. That’s it. There is no need to postulate other ontological realms.”
“The mathematics breaks down at the singularity but not within the event horizon. We know what happens there. You get converted into paste and then into a stream of particles. The physics for that is straight forward. It’s at the singularity where our current theories ‘blow up’.”
“The singularity is thought to be a point inside the event horizon. If the black hole is rotating it can be a ring shape. But really, this is all speculation. The existence of singularities is thought to be a failure of general relativity.”
Apparently noen knows that the universe consists only of matter in motion and rejects metaphysics. However, these are metaphysical claims. He then writes about mathematics which also apparently exists as matter in motion. However, it is difficult to see how mathematics could consist of physical entities. Digging an even deeper hole, noen posits alleged information concerning a singularity. He writes about the event horizon and is even so bold as to state that, “We know what happens there”; explaining that one will become paste just prior to becoming a stream of particles (but is this not what we are anyway on noen’s view?). He states that the physics for this are “straight forward”. He goes on to write more and more about the nature of black holes and insists upon some knowledge including that of where the “speculation” begins.
With all of this supposed knowledge of science one would think that noen has a pretty good idea of how we know that nature is uniform since everything he has written is contingent upon such knowledge. What is noen’s answer to how we know that nature is uniform?
“We don’t ‘know’. Science is guesswork. Very very good guesses, but still… it works.”
What more needs to be said? “Science is guesswork.” I love it. Sometimes I wish I had Richard Dawkins around when I read these sorts of “explanations” although I would not want his heart to give out. We can safely assume that there is no need to listen to noen on these matters. One guess is as good as another! Just what has been accomplished in terms of an apologetic? When one rejects the God of the Bible who ‘holds the world in His hands’ one becomes futile in his or her reasoning. In noen’s bold matter-of-fact guesses we have just one more example of such futility.
Comments
103 responses to “Science Is Guesswork”
Chris,
I seem to recall you mentioning that you were going to author a closing statement to our discussion some time ago. Can I still expect this? (You can even have the last word, doesn’t really bother me…I’m just interested in your thoughts).
Yup. Hopefully it will be up next. I wrote it right away and then was unable to find the time to smooth it out. Sorry it has taken so long.
Sweet 😀
I’m not a he
“Of course I doubt that the post was written with the intention of impressing noen, and he merely asserts that “the argument” (it is unclear what argument he is referring to) is “without merit” but never explains why he thinks this way.”
I doubt it was intended to impress me either. Nevertheless I was unimpressed by it. What argument? Why, the subject of the post of course. Zao Thanatoo’s reply.
“Of course it is hardly true that I have been “picking on Objectivists” and I have not seen a large number of responses to Objectivism nor any kind of refutation of the position by noen.”
Since the Objectivist theory of causality is mentioned at length in the post It did seem to me that you were “picking” on them. Objectivism is a cult. Who takes them seriously?
“These comments pale in comparison to the one noen left on the post found here where he writes as though he is an authority in the area of physics.”
One need not be and authority to understand elementary physics. And yes, the physical effects on your body when crossing the event horizon of a black hole would turn you into paste.
“Apparently noen knows that the universe consists only of matter in motion and rejects metaphysics.”
Indeed. I do.
“He then writes about mathematics which also apparently exists as matter in motion.”
Don’t be silly.
“However, it is difficult to see how mathematics could consist of physical entities.”
Very true. Good thing I never made that claim.
Noen “writes about the event horizon and is even so bold as to state that, “We know what happens there”; explaining that one will become paste just prior to becoming a stream of particles (but is this not what we are anyway on noen’s view?).”
Yes, we do know what happens there and no, I am not made of paste though I cannot speak for you, I suspect you are not either.
“What more needs to be said? “Science is guesswork.” ”
We don’t have absolute knowledge of the universe but that doesn’t mean we can’t have knowledge of the universe. “Guesswork” merely refers to the scientific method of empirical investigation which gives us facts about the world. So yes, it is “mere guesswork” but it is also true knowledge about the world though people tend to associate the word “knowledge” with absolute truth. Science does not give us that but it is knowledge still.
“One guess is as good as another!”
No, I doubt that very much and I highly doubt you would chose to live your life by random guesses.
Wow. Just wow.
I’m sorry, but how many two and three word responses were there in that comment – to whole paragraphs? How many self-refutations are crammed into two and three word responses, too!
Unbelievable.
“how many two and three word responses were there in that comment”
I’m not going to spend time and energy on long replies if it’s not really worth the effort.
Is it worth it?
Not really, from your position. What intelligibility does “worth” have in materialism, anyway?
“What intelligibility does “worth” have in materialism, anyway?”
I’m not a materialist.
““Apparently noen knows that the universe consists only of matter in motion and rejects metaphysics.”
‘Indeed. I do.‘
Now, if the universe consists ONLY of matter, and you *reject* metaphysics – what are we left with?
“what are we left with?”
Only that which is before us, nothing more.
Dodge; and I don’t mean Ram 🙂
If “you *reject* metaphysics – what are we left with?”
We are simply left with the world as it is. Metaphysics is the pretense that we can know ultimate reality or first causes but these kinds of statements are unintelligible. I am agnostic about many claims that people make. “God”, “Ultimate reality” and so on are claims that just don’t make much sense.
I understand that you would like to box me into some rhetorical corner so that you can recite your prepared script. I think that is just… silliness. So… for example, you will find that I’m not interested in “proving” that logic must be true as so many presuppositionalists are wont to do. Reason is simply the precondition to any possible discourse. There is nothing more to be said and no possibility of justifying justification.
Lets try putting it a different way. Descartes looked at the world and thought he could perceive two things, the material and the mental. He was a dualist. Leibniz looked at the world and counted one thing, he was a monist. Others have looked at the world and counted to three, the mental, the physical and the abstract.
I simply reject this whole business of counting. This “business of counting” I take to be what most people mean by metaphysics. I guess “reject” is too strong, just… “not interested”, I guess.
Hello noen,
Forgive me for thinking you were male when you are not.
It is apparent from your responses that you are not actually overly familiar with the philosophical categories you are writing about and so there is not too much I can help you with until you do more research. My reply will be brief.
You still never explained why you find Zao Thanatoo’s argument to be “without merit” and so my original comment about it still stands. Writing about the Objectivist theory of causality does not at all entail that I am “picking on” Objectivists. Asking, “Who takes them seriously?” in response does not add anything relevant to the discussion and does not assist in substantiating your earlier comment. Objectivists take Objectivism seriously just like atheists take atheism seriously.
You write more about physics in stating, “One need not be and authority to understand elementary physics” and “[T]he physical effects on your body when crossing the event horizon of a black hole would turn you into paste.” The point that you are still missing is that neither of these is substantiated by anything you hold as your overall view of the world. Such statements are purely guesswork and nothing more. But then I might just as easily deny the statements based upon my own guesses.
You write that you know that the universe consists only of matter in motion and you reject metaphysics. Again according to your own program this is nothing more than a guess and does not constitute knowledge at all. Further in rejecting metaphysics you actually subscribe to a theory of metaphysics. You tell us we can know nothing about the world and then proceed to tell us why we cannot know anything about the world based upon your alleged knowledge of the world.
You tell me not be silly in writing that you must view mathematics as matter in motion yet you have already stated that all that exists is matter in motion and nothing more. Either such silliness is to be accepted, it is not silly to understand mathematics as matter in motion, or you are contradicting yourself. The idea that mathematics consist of physical entities is a claim you are committed to based upon your theory of the world as matter in motion.
Again you write about the event horizon, what happens there, and mention your knowledge of both of these but you have again already stated that “science is just guess work” which does not constitute knowledge. While neither of us is made of paste on your view we are made up of nothing more than a stream of particles.
In defense of your claim that “science is just guess work” you now write that what you mean is that we do not have absolute knowledge of the universe. This is not what you said. Not having absolute knowledge of the universe is not the same thing as science being guess work. The two claims are actually quite different. Further in order to state that everything is ultimately unknowable in any ultimate or absolute sense one presupposes that she has absolute knowledge of everything which is contradictory.
You claim that while we do not have absolute knowledge of the universe that does not mean that we cannot have knowledge of the universe. What about if science is just guess work? Can we have knowledge of the universe then? Since guess work is not even non-absolute knowledge and since you state that science is nothing more than guess work the things you have written concerning black holes is nothing more than guess work. It is not knowledge.
Now you want to redefine “guesswork” as merely referring “to the scientific method of empirical investigation which gives us facts about the world.” You should write what you mean. That is not what “guesswork” means at all. If you want to direct me toward a text on science which uses this terminology then I will correct myself but I highly doubt that you can. Still if you want to throw out your earlier indefensible claim that “science is just guesswork” then we can start over with your claim that we can know things through “the scientific method of empirical investigation.” Now we are back to where we started. You have the Problem of Induction. You do not believe that nature is uniform. So much for the scientific method then.
I never wrote that I choose to live my life by random guesses. I am not committed to absurd views. I really do not think you are getting the gist of what you are writing or what I have written. Perhaps spend some time reading through material on induction and then if you want to chat more about it we can. Until then there are so many problems in what you have written that correcting them will take me more time than I currently have. Dismissing the views of others as “silly” is not argument it is just name calling and I am really not going to waste time writing out responses to it.
Sir, this seems to me an attempt to obscure the fact that you have already stated the materialist position. That there is nothing, save matter. It is in print, in this very comment section. Beyond that, you have specifically denied metaphysics. When asked, when challenged on your materialism, what else there *could be* – your assertion was “what is there”. As you have already defined this, above; “matter in motion” – going to what other philosophers have said, while recusing yourself from defending your own stated position on the grounds of “it just has to be” seems rather disingenuous. Sir, did you not already answer the question? Is matter in motion all there is, or not? Did you not deny metaphysics?
I find it puzzling that you have gone this route, especially given the fact that your statements on the matter are plainly visible above. Do you not recognize that your answer is clearly seen? Do you not recognize that your discursive flights into philosophical history are not going to make us forget that we just read your answer above? I find it truly baffling, to say the least.
In any case, I hope this dialogue has been interesting to our readers. Notice that noen has affirmed materialism, and denied any metaphysics. On that basis, I truly wonder how he is able to account for his assumption of the ability to communicate that we possess, or communication itself – along with a host of other issues this raises.
Per Chris’ comment above, if I called you “sir” incorrectly, I apologize. Chris and I were apparently writing simultaneously, and I didn’t catch a comment to that effect above.
I confused you with someone else when writing that you deny that nature is uniform. Instead I would ask the following:
“What is noen’s answer to how we know that nature is uniform?”
I have several things going on today, someone I knew at my apt. building passed away the other night and there is an event going on later this evening but I’ll try to get to some of these by and by.
“What is noen’s answer to how we know that nature is uniform?”
People throw that phrase “to know” around an awful lot. I don’t think we have a priori knowledge of synthetic claims. I’m not even sure what is being claimed. Obviously the natural world is *not* uniform. I am quite comfortable here but I imagine I would be less so on the surface of the sun. But I suspect you mean physical laws, well, as far as I know I would say that it is an assumption that we must make. Otherwise the world would be unintelligible to us and even unable to support life if there were no regularity or consistency in nature.
“Sir, this seems to me an attempt to obscure the fact that you have already stated the materialist position. That there is nothing, save matter. ”
I’m not a sir. I’m a (somewhat nerdy) woman. What I’ve said is not inconsistent. That the world consists of nothing more than particles moving in lines of force does not relegate one to materialism. I suspect the reason you think so is due to certain Cartesian assumptions that lay behind your thinking. I am not a materialist because I do not accept the assumptions that divide the world into materialism vs immaterialism.
“Now you want to redefine “guesswork” as merely referring “to the scientific method of empirical investigation which gives us facts about the world.” You should write what you mean.”
I was really just kinda joking around, are you always so earnest? When I said that science is guesswork I had in mind Kurt Vonnegut who said something very much like that. But you know… it *is* more or less true. Science, or empiricism, is not much more than making a guess, checking it out, pondering over what the results mean and then making another guess. Oddly, this process gives us facts about the world, imagine that.
Another fact of the world is that I tore a nail the other day and it’s getting painful to type so I’ll have to add more later.
“You still never explained why you find Zao Thanatoo’s argument to be “without merit” ”
Presuppositional arguments are inherently circular at best or sophistry at worst. We can’t prove proof nor discover the logic of logic. Those who take the bait and try to reason outside of reason are deceiving themselves.
“Writing about the Objectivist theory of causality does not at all entail that I am “picking on” Objectivists.”
Relax, it was just a joke.
About black holes: “The point that you are still missing is that neither of these is substantiated by anything you hold as your overall view of the world. Such statements are purely guesswork and nothing more. But then I might just as easily deny the statements based upon my own guesses.”
You are free to leap into one and discover what happens for yourself. I hold that science gives us facts about the world that are more than random guesses.
“You tell us we can know nothing about the world”
It is right there spread out before you. Do you not have eyes with which to see?
“The idea that mathematics consist of physical entities is a claim you are committed to based upon your theory of the world as matter in motion.”
Mathematics is a language created by humans to describe the world. It is not God’s nor Nature’s own language. I do not need to propose that mathematical objects must have a physical ontology to explain them. Analytic statements, mathematics, are not that mysterious.
“you have again already stated that “science is just guess work” which does not constitute knowledge”
Empiricism, what I called “guesswork”, gives us facts about the world. So yes, it does constitute knowledge.
“Further in order to state that everything is ultimately unknowable in any ultimate or absolute sense one presupposes that she has absolute knowledge of everything which is contradictory.”
But I don’t claim that I have absolute knowledge. I claim that metaphysical claims about absolute reality are unintelligible and therefore moot.
“Since guess work is not even non-absolute knowledge and since you state that science is nothing more than guess work the things you have written concerning black holes is nothing more than guess work. It is not knowledge.”
Of course it’s knowledge. I am sure that you are aware of how the scientific method works. You make a guess, you test it and then make another guess based on it. The process yields facts about the world such that we do indeed know what goes on in the interior of stars or black holes.
“You should write what you mean.”
I was being casual and using a light hearted manner in order to break up the sometimes heavy demeanor these conversations take on. You guys sometimes get too carried away with this stuff.
“I never wrote that I choose to live my life by random guesses. I am not committed to absurd views.”
Neither do I, yay! We agree on something!
“Dismissing the views of others as “silly” is not argument it is just name calling”
Again, I was being light hearted there. It was a friendly jibe, not an attack. Why so serious?
The assertion, “The argument is without merit,” assumes that there is a standard of merit by which to judge arguments. By what standard is the argument meritless?
“Presuppositional arguments are inherently circular at best or sophistry at worst.”
What do you mean by “circular”? If you mean there is some fallacy in all presuppositional arguments, please demonstrate this is the case without committing the same fallacy (e.g. arguing while presupposing nothing).
“I hold that science gives us facts about the world that are more than random guesses.”
Why do you hold this opinion?
“Mathematics is a language created by humans to describe the world…” etc.
Do you have a presupposition-less argument in support of this assertion? As interesting as your opinions are to you, I’d be much more interested in viewing some arguments in support of them, if you please.
“But I don’t claim that I have absolute knowledge.”
How do you know that anything you claim to know now won’t be proven false by some as-yet-unknown-to-you information you come to know at a later date?
“I am sure that you are aware of how the scientific method works. You make a guess, you test it and then make another guess based on it. The process yields facts about the world such that we do indeed know what goes on in the interior of stars or black holes.”
Please explain how a series of “guesses” produce “facts” and “knowledge.” It sounds more like alchemy than science to me…
“What do you mean by “circular”?”
Begging the question might be better. Presuppositionism says that we all make assumptions and that therefore one set of presuppositions aren’t any better than another. This is a way of heading off criticism by begging the question. Is the Bible the word of God? Who knows? We’ll just presuppose it is. Problem solved!
“Why do you hold this opinion?” (science gives us facts)
Because it works.
“Do you have a presupposition-less argument in support of this assertion?” (mathematics is a language)
No, since we both agree that we all have make assumptions somewhere along the line it would not be possible for me or you to give *any* presupposition free argument.
“How do you know that anything you claim to know now won’t be proven false”
I don’t, I’m ok with that.
“Please explain how a series of “guesses” produce “facts” and “knowledge.””
Ask a question
Construct a hypothesis (educated guess) <—– guesses go here
Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
Repeat as needed
Referring back to the original post, how is the following conclusion reached: “When one rejects the God of the Bible one becomes futile in his or her reasoning.”
In reality, there are numerous non-Christians who reject the word of the Bible (or perhaps have never even read the Bible) who have fared quite well in their reasoning. Of course, you must be intimately familiar with all of the worldviews in existence and have contemplated each and every one of them quite thoroughly.
That subject is addressed all throughout this website. First time visiting, I gather?
noen,
It is quite difficult to argue with you since you have completely changed the original position you were defending. Am I correct that at the center of your contentions is the claim that presuppositionalism as a method is flawed because it assumes that the Bible is the Word of God? Am I correct that at the center of your claims about knowledge of particulars of topics in physics is the assumption that nature exhibits regularities?
Agreus,
https://choosinghats.org/?p=830
It is a lovely Sunday afternoon and I should be outside… and will be shortly.
“It is quite difficult to argue with you since you have completely changed the original position you were defending.”
I’m not a machine, I’m organic and make mistakes and mis-starts and fail to explain myself and so on. I don’t have a rigid ideology to which I strictly adhere. I have a loose collection of idea that I think work pretty well. I do think that I can be very logical sometimes but… perhaps not always.
“Am I correct that at the center of your contentions is the claim that presuppositionalism as a method is flawed because it assumes that the Bible is the Word of God?”
It seems to beg the question to me. It goes something like this:
Casualty implies God
Casualty
Therefore God
or
Logic implies God
Logic
Therefore God
The question is begged in the first term when you assume what you are attempting to prove. The arguments are usually circular in that they spin around semantic quibbles and the meanings of words. The whole enterprise seems dishonest to me.
“Am I correct that at the center of your claims about knowledge of particulars of topics in physics is the assumption that nature exhibits regularities?”
We assume that the universe is uniform, that the laws of gravity and electromagnetism and such that we discover here on earth also apply everywhere. I guess that if we one day travel to the stars and discover the law of gravity is different then we’ll have to change our theories but that seems highly unlikely.
So yes, we do know what goes on in the interior of stars in another galaxy billions of light-years away. If you have a better theory by all means publish you paper and collect your Nobel Prize.
“All transcendental arguments make some claim about necessary enabling conditions. Given that the sense of necessity in question is not logical, how can the uniqueness of the enabling conditions ever be shown?”
http://www.iep.utm.edu/trans-ar/
RazorsKiss,
Yes, I’m new to this website and haven’t taken the time to sift through its entirety yet. I suspect what I will find are the typical responses given by proponents of TAG following the same rhetoric as Bahnsen. Unfortunately, his responses do not sufficiently address the objection. Were there some better responses that address the criticism that you wanted to direct me to on your website?
I am having difficulty finding what the “criticism” is in your assertions. I also provided you with a link.
“It seems to beg the question to me. It goes something like this:
Casualty implies God
Casualty
Therefore God”
Modus ponens begs the question? Haha, good one.
Agreus: Well, Bahnsen addresses the question you ask fairly completely in Always Ready, as one of the common objections made – a book we discuss here. Also, Chris linked you to a succinct summary, above.
“Modus ponens begs the question? Haha, good one.”
Modus ponens does not however: “The TAG does not fulfill the necessary prerequisites for an Argument of Proof – that is, to have already proved the foundational premises before the conclusion is made. Any premise that has not been proved, by its very nature, is an assumption and is considered to be begging the question.”
The premise “Casualty implies God” cannot be proved true so it is either assumed or clouded with sophistry. The TAG, as well as the entire project of presuppositionalism must therefore fail.
Wikipedia. Nice.
noen,
You should probably do a bit more reading before attempting to take on TAG. I am not convinced that you have understood the Problem of Induction or TAG.
“The premise “Casualty implies God” cannot be proved true so it is either assumed or clouded with sophistry. The TAG, as well as the entire project of presuppositionalism must therefore fail.”
You’re basically saying it is necessarily false. Now, I am not a presuppositionalist; but…why do you think this?
Also;
are you denying that your previous post implies that modus ponens begs the question, or not?
“why do you think this?”
After Hume we cannot claim that casualty must necessarily be true. That is, we cannot *deduce* a necessary casual connection by observing that B follows A. That would lead to absurd and false conclusions.
“are you denying that your previous post implies that modus ponens begs the question, or not?”
Previously explained.
“You should probably do a bit more reading before attempting to take on TAG. I am not convinced that you have understood the Problem of Induction or TAG.”
I understand just fine. The source of the confusion is probably that disagree in ways that are unfamiliar to you.
“Wikipedia. Nice.”
Wiki is just fine for answering simple questions. The TAG begs the question. The reasons why are easy to comprehend.
Actually the way you just summarized the problem indicates again that you do not understand just fine. :/
How can we have scientific knowledge in light of Hume’s worry?
“How can we have scientific knowledge in light of Hume’s worry?”
Science does not give us necessary truths, it gives us contingent facts about the world. Only abstract reasoning, math and logic, can give us necessary truths. As I understand your position you assert that only analytic propositions, the necessary truths of math and logic, merit the designation of “knowledge”. I am asserting that contingent facts of the world, facts that are the result of science’s empirical method of investigation, also can be said to represent “knowledge”.
I think I have explained this distinction several times now in this very thread. It should be sufficient for you to understand what my positions is. If not I doubt any further attempts by me will do us any good.
Because it works.
That was a fine example of begging the question. It looks like this: We know science works because it works.
Hume was not addressing abstract reasoning, math, logic, and necessary truths. He states as much at the very beginning of his argument. Either you have not read Hume or you have completely forgotten what you read. He called into question our ability to know anything about contingencies in the world. He effectively destroyed science through his skepticism.
I have not asserted anywhere that only analytic propositions, necessary truths, math, and logic constitute “knowledge”. I am not a Rationalist. If you were familiar with Van Tillian presuppositionalism you would know this.
“I am asserting that contingent facts of the world, facts that are the result of science’s empirical method of investigation, also can be said to represent ‘knowledge’.”
I know you are *asserting* this. I want to know *how* and/or *why* you are doing so in light of Hume’s worry. You have shown that you are not familiar with the problem I am trying to call to your attention.
You should probably do a bit more reading before attempting to take on TAG. I am not convinced that you have understood the Problem of Induction or TAG.
How can we have scientific knowledge in light of Hume’s worry? You never actually addressed this question. You wrote about math and logic etc. I am asking you about scientific knowledge.
“That was a fine example of begging the question. It looks like this: We know science works because it works.”
Fortunately for me I never said that.
Hume “called into question our ability to know anything about contingencies in the world. He effectively destroyed science through his skepticism.”
Ahh… no, he called into question our ability to *deduce* necessary truths from observation. He also pointed out that inductive reasoning can never be *certain* so far from destroying science, he made it possible.
“I know you are *asserting* this. I want to know *how* and/or *why* you are doing so in light of Hume’s worry.”
Your interpretation of Hume is in error. Hume’s worry was that we cannot deduce necessary truth and that induction is contingent. Scientific facts are not necessary truths about the world. They are contingent and subject to change. Scientific theories are never to be regarded as final absolute truth but as very strong hypotheses that have withstood the test of time but that could potentially be over thrown by contradictory evidence.
“You should probably do a bit more reading before attempting to take on TAG.”
I don’t think it’s that hard. I think that all you do is just assume that God must be foundational to logic or reason but that is what you want to prove so the argument is circular and without merit.
No, my “interpretation” of Hume is not incorrect at all. You should come clean and admit that you are in unfamiliar territory. Even if my interpretation were incorrect you would still need to deal with the problem as presented in ‘my interpretation’. The problem is not that inductive reasoning can never be certain. The problem is that inductive reasoning is not justified at all!
“As to past Experience, it can be allowed to give direct and certain information of those precise objects only, and that precise period of time, which fell under its cognizance: but why this experience should be extended to future times, and to other objects, which for aught we know, may be only in appearance similar; this is the main question on which I would insist.” – David Hume
“On our answer to this question must depend the validity of the whole of our expectations as to the future, the whole of the results obtained by induction, and in fact practically all the beliefs upon which our daily life is based.” – Bertrand Russell
“…all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance.” – David Hume
“The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life. All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.” – Bertrand Russell
“The problem is that inductive reasoning is not justified at all!”
This is simply false. If your claim is that we are never justified in reaching probable conclusions from inductive reasoning, which is what all of science is based upon, then you are truly deceived.
Yes, past experience cannot guarantee future experience. Yes, all inferences presuppose that the future will resemble the past. Yes, the general principles of science depend on the assumption that inductive reasoning is valid.
None of your quotations contradict anything that I’ve said. Inductive reasoning does not give us *certainty*. So what? That does not mean that science cannot give us knowledge. The conclusions of science are conditional, probable, no one denies that.
Chris, whether you find noen’s answer to the problem of induction acceptable or not really is irrelevant since the Christian God is not a solution to the problem. Saying that God upholds the “Uniformity of Nature” and that his revelation of this fact serves as justified induction is just stepping the problem back. How do you then justify the Uniformity of God? So you see, you end up question begging and skewered on the same fallacy.
noen,
Since alleged probabilistic conclusions in induction rest upon the same proposed solution to the problem of induction that Hume presented (the uniformity of nature) they are likewise unjustified. Yes, all of science is based upon induction. So now how do you save induction and science from the problem? Asserting that the things I am writing are false and asserting that I am deceived is not a sufficient answer to the problem.
Hume was a skeptic. He presented skeptical arguments. He destroyed science through the problem he raised with induction. That is why other philosophers came along and tried to solve the problem. Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber to try and save science. The point is not about certainty but about whether or not we can have any inductive or scientific knowledge at all. According to Hume and Russell we cannot. Their point was not that we cannot have certainty or that our conclusions are probabilistic. Such a claim would not have made it onto the radar of significant subjects in the history of philosophy. Their point was that induction does not provide us with knowledge.
The allegedly probable conclusions of inductive reasoning rest upon the assumption that ‘future experience will resemble past experience’ or that ‘future experience will probably resemble past experience’. How do you know that ‘future experience will probably resemble past experience’? You initially stated that we do not know this and thus conceded to the skeptic. Now you are instead arguing in defense of scientific knowledge. So again I must ask how you know that ‘future experience will probably resemble past experience’? Do you know it because in the past it has? Then you are begging the question because you are just assuming that since in the past the future has resembled the past it will probably do so again in the future. The assertion is based upon the very assumption being called into question that ‘future experience will probably resemble past experience’. Probabilism does not solve the problem for the very same reason that Hume’s initially proposed solution does not. Please either concede or provide an answer.
Agreus,
If noen does not have an answer to the problem of induction then he is irrational in his inductive and scientific conclusions. Given the centrality of alleged scientific knowledge in noen’s view that is pretty devastating. So no it is not irrelevant. Additionally if no one has an answer to the problem of induction then we must all embrace skepticism and then the entire discussion is void anyway.
I am not proposing the Christian God as a solution to the problem of induction. Rather there is no problem of induction because God exists. God never changes. God transcends nature. God is in complete control of His creation. God reveals Himself to us through His creation. Nature thus exhibits regularities and I am justified in my use of inductive reasoning. One must presuppose the existence of God in order to reason at all.
What is your solution? If you do not have one then I am not interested in what you have to say since in that case you are a skeptic anyway. Finally you should be careful not to mix categories. Even Hume presents his problem with respect to ‘matters of fact’.
If noen does not have an answer to the problem of induction then he is irrational in his inductive and scientific conclusions.
She is irrational.
I suspect, inductively, that this kind of irrationality is the norm with women.
Fortunately for me I never said that.
You did essentially. You defined the scientific method as “works” and begged the question.
We understand what the scientific method is. No need to explain it. The problem is this statement of yours:
Yes, past experience cannot guarantee future experience.
ensures that we aren’t justified in reaching any conclusions, probable or otherwise.
she*
Chris,
You say there is no problem of induction for the Christian because God has revealed his unchanging nature through his creation to you. However, defining God us unchanging and saying that He “reveals” his unchanging nature to you doesn’t do away with the problem. How do you know what he reveals today will be the same as what he reveals to you tomorrow? In other words, how can you know that God is unchanging if you are relying on your finite perspective of the world? As I just stated in my last post, it just pushes the problem back a step.
Agreus,
You are committing the tu quoque fallacy and ignoring the content of my last comment. If you have questions or objections to that specific response then we can deal with them but you have oversimplified my answer there and moved on to other questions.
Chris, a tu quoque fallacy is when I try to divert attention away from the argument by accusing you of the same criticism that you are accusing me of. It is only a tu quoque if, when you are guilty of committing the same fallacy you accuse me of, it is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.
Your original charge was that the problem of induction is not a problem for Christianity, whereas it is a devasting, “science destroying” problem for pretty much every other non-Christian being in the universe. I pointed out simply how this is pushing the problem back and it is a problem for Christianity as well. Obviously, that has relevance to your original charge. Rather than respond to the point I made, you incorrectly accused me of a tu quoque fallacy. Now I’m tutoring you on tu quoque fallacies.
Because your whole argument hinged on this notion that the problem of induction was actually not a problem for Christians and because I just showed how it actually was, everything else you’ve said is pretty much a moot point.
Yes I know what a tu quoque fallacy is Agreus. Attempting to point out the very same problem in my worldview that I have pointed out in your’s is irrelevant to the truth that you have a problem in your worldview. ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’ So again what is your solution?
You have not shown that there is a problem for Christians. While you asserted that there is a problem for Christians I have since commented. However you have not responded to the content of that comment. You have mixed categories in terms of Hume’s argument and then attempted to shift the problem over onto me upon the basis of that mistake without having given any justification for the induction which makes this discussion possible in the first place.
What exactly is your answer to the problem?
Let me restate part of the tu quoque fallacy definition again… It is only a tu quoque if, when you are guilty of committing the same fallacy you accuse me of, it is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. Your argument is attempting to show that one worldview is more rational than the other. I would find it difficult to believe that your goal is merely to show that I cannot answer the problem of induction without begging the question. So obviously, it is very relevant for me to show that your worldview does not carry the advantage (rationally speaking) because it does away with the problem of induction as you claim. It’s not a tu quoque fallacy.
“You have not shown that there is a problem for Christians.”
I will just copy/paste what I said earlier and perhaps this time you can respond to it…
You say there is no problem of induction for the Christian because God has revealed his unchanging nature through his creation to you. However, defining God us unchanging and saying that He “reveals” his unchanging nature to you doesn’t do away with the problem. How do you know what he reveals today will be the same as what he reveals to you tomorrow? In other words, how can you know that God is unchanging if you are relying on your finite perspective of the world?
“While you asserted that there is a problem for Christians I have since commented. However you have not responded to the content of that comment.”
What specific comment are you referring to that you think I’m overlooking?
“You have mixed categories in terms of Hume’s argument and then attempted to shift the problem over onto me upon the basis of that mistake without having given any justification for the induction which makes this discussion possible in the first place.”
I don’t follow you here. You’re going to have to clarify on how I’m mixing up categories in terms of Hume’s arguments, etc.
“What exactly is your answer to the problem?”
First show me how the problem of induction is relevant and then I’ll give you my answer.
.
You wrote,
“Chris, whether you find noen’s answer to the problem of induction acceptable or not really is irrelevant since the Christian God is not a solution to the problem. Saying that God upholds the “Uniformity of Nature” and that his revelation of this fact serves as justified induction is just stepping the problem back. How do you then justify the Uniformity of God? So you see, you end up question begging and skewered on the same fallacy.”
I responded,
“If noen does not have an answer to the problem of induction then he is irrational in his inductive and scientific conclusions. Given the centrality of alleged scientific knowledge in noen’s view that is pretty devastating. So no it is not irrelevant. Additionally if no one has an answer to the problem of induction then we must all embrace skepticism and then the entire discussion is void anyway.
I am not proposing the Christian God as a solution to the problem of induction. Rather there is no problem of induction because God exists. God never changes. God transcends nature. God is in complete control of His creation. God reveals Himself to us through His creation. Nature thus exhibits regularities and I am justified in my use of inductive reasoning. One must presuppose the existence of God in order to reason at all.
What is your solution? If you do not have one then I am not interested in what you have to say since in that case you are a skeptic anyway. Finally you should be careful not to mix categories. Even Hume presents his problem with respect to ‘matters of fact’.”
The comments that have followed since then have not specifically addressed my response nor shown that you are actually familiar with my position, Hume’s problem, or tu quoque. This is fine of course but not when you act as though you are familiar with the topics in question.
I await your answers to my concerns about your mixing categories in terms of Hume’s problem and your solution to the problem; the two main points of the comment I am referring to.
“I don’t follow you here. You’re going to have to clarify on how I’m mixing up categories in terms of Hume’s arguments, etc.”
If you are not familiar with Hume’s argument then you are not entitled to the bold assertions you have made concerning it and presuppositionalism.
“First show me how the problem of induction is relevant and then I’ll give you my answer.”
I already did this in the comment quoted above.
I have addressed your response and I will do so one more time for your benefit. I would suggest that before you ask if someone holding a non-Christian worldview can answer the problem of induction, you ask yourself the same question. If your worldview cannot rationally justify inductive inferences, then your presuppositional argument falls flat on its face. Even if I never am compelled to offer you an answer to inductive skepticism, if I can show it is a problem in your worldview, then your argument has failed.
So I turn the table on you. How are you rationally justified in believing that what God has revealed to you today, will be the same as what God will reveal to you tomorrow when revelation can only be known through experience (a posteriori)? If you say, because that is how God is defined, i.e. God is unchanging, then you are just begging the question and this is not a rational justification for induction.
Chris,
Though I have already covered everything in my previous post, I will specifically address your responses here:
“I am not proposing the Christian God as a solution to the problem of induction. Rather there is no problem of induction because God exists.”
You have yet to establish God exists. There is a problem of induction in the Christian worldview.
“God never changes. God transcends nature. God is in complete control of His creation. “
Here you define God by assigning God various abstract properties.
“God reveals Himself to us through His creation. “
Here you describe what you believe you know a posteriori, but of course you have no rational justification for knowing this. As I explained, the problem of induction remains in the Christian worldview.
“Nature thus exhibits regularities and I am justified in my use of inductive reasoning.”
Here you erroneously come to the conclusion that nature exhibits regularities. You cannot rationally justify your use of inductive logic because you are basing this justification on previous observations or “revelations” from God. The problem of induction still exists for you.
“One must presuppose the existence of God in order to reason at all. ”
Your conclusion doesn’t follow.
“What is your solution? If you do not have one then I am not interested in what you have to say since in that case you are a skeptic anyway.”
It’s a moot point and I don’t think you are interested in having a serious discussion about the problem anyhow. I might have a solution to the “problem”, but since it’s irrelevant, I won’t necessarily be discussing it with you.
But let me ask you this… we have come a long way since Hume and Russell, which seems to be your limited sphere of knowledge when it comes to the problem of induction. If I were to show you how I am able to resolve the problem of induction whereas the Christian worldview cannot, would you actually think this is a good reason to give up the Christian worldview?
heh. Presups, take me away!
If you want to go to the mat on the problem of induction then I am sitting here waiting to do so but you have mixed categories. If you do not know what I am talking about then you have either not read Hume or you have forgotten what you read. If you want to move beyond Hume then show me you are ready to do so. If you have no solution to the problem then you are being irrational yet demanding rationality in terms of my argument. Stating that you might have an answer but then not providing it is not persuasive to me. You may try and turn the previous statement around on me but I have provided the reason for believing that I do not have a problem of induction. Your objections to that answer show that you have not grasped (or are misrepresenting) the problem or my theology even though you claim to be familiar with both. So as much as I hate to say it I think you are just blowing smoke. Let me know if you want to actually discuss the issue and we will begin by addressing my concern.
But we are addressing *your* concern.
Why don’t you explain how I’ve confused Hume’s categories, as I’m not so sure you understand them yourself… I’m not here to make your argument for you. Merely saying I’ve confused them doesn’t constitute an argument.
For the purpose of clarification, I’ll briefly delve into Hume’s categories and then place it in the context of whether or not Christian theism provides rational justification of induction. If you still insist that I have mixed categories then please do me the honor of clarifying how I’ve mixed categories.
Hume categorizes beliefs into Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact. Relations of Ideas are beliefs that are known independent of experience, having no external referent. Matters of Fact, on the other hand, are contingent beliefs that claim to be of existing things and are derived from experience. This is Hume’s distinction between a priori and a posteriori.
Hume was interested in establishing a rational justification for the causal connection of Matters of Fact. He argued that the necessity of a causal connection cannot be empirically proven. In order for us to acquire knowledge of the universe, we must therefore presuppose that the past will bear some resemblance of the future.
He often used the example of our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. This belief is regarded as a matter of fact, based on our past observations that each sunrise is an effect caused by the rotation of the earth. However, this belief in the causal relationship is based on our past observations, which cannot be justified by reference to the past. Therefore we have no rational justification for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow.
In short, Hume’s skepticism about induction was a challenge to establish the necessity of causal connections on empirical grounds. Does Christian theism somehow dissolve this problem? According to you, the problem is devastating to non-Christian worldviews because they are incapable of answering the question “How do we know that future experience will probably resemble past experience?” without begging the question. Your answer was to make several statements about God, which in terms of Humes categories we can consider a relation of ideas since God is not an empirical fact. You then state that God has revealed the uniformity of nature to you, which we could categorize as a matter of fact since it is based upon your experience.
So what is the status of your worldview with regard to Hume’s challenge? Your statements about God tell us nothing about the world and are just a relation of ideas. Your revelations are experiences, which you are unable to rationally justify. How do you know that your future revelations will resemble your past revelations?
If you choose to not address the question or any of the points I’ve made, then I’ll have to bid you farewell as I don’t think we’re communicating effectively.
God is known apart from experience and through experience such that knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.
What was your solution?
Based on that statement alone, I’m not sure you grasp the problem of induction. I find that odd since you sure did act like the authority on the subject earlier. How are you rationally justified in believing ‘what has been known’ will resemble what is known?
Oh I highly doubt that I am “the authority” on the problem of induction but I do believe that I grasp it. What specifically is in my statement that leads you to believe that I do not grasp the problem?
I am rationally justified in believing that “what has been known” will resemble “what is known” because “what has been known” already resembles “what is known”. (What “has been known” is actually the same as “what is known”.) I think you may have meant to ask something else.
Chris, “has been known” is the present perfect continuous tense, which is typically used when an action started in the past and stopped recently or is continuing. It is not the same as “what is known”. What exactly did you mean to say? That you are rationally justified in believing upon the basis of what is known? How does that solve the problem?
I am referring to the object of knowledge not the phrases.
What specifically is in my statement that leads you to believe that I do not grasp the problem?
What was your solution?
“God is known apart from experience and through experience…”
In Hume’s terms, you are stating that God is a ‘relation of ideas’ and simultaneously a ‘matter of fact’, i.e. that God is both necessary and contingent at the same time. This is contradictory.
“…knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.”
Basing your “matter of fact” knowledge on a contradiction is not a rational justification. Sorry.
Where did I ever state that God is contingent? I stated that God is known through experience. God is not contingent.
Also could you answer my questions:
What specifically is in my statement that leads you to believe that I do not grasp the problem?
What was your solution?
The problem of induction does not even call into question present experience but rather one’s ability to rationally move from that experience to expectations regarding future experience. So you still do not appear to be getting Hume, you have not properly represented the argument I am using, and you keep stating things concerning theology that are incorrect. Additionally you still have not provided any solution to the problem and I do not believe that you ever will apart from recognizing your Lord.
My hope and prayer for you is that you will repent from your sins and trust in Jesus Christ to deliver you from the judgment which will come. He was crucified for sins, buried, and rose again and He is coming again.
I guess I’m confused as to what you mean when you state something self-contradictory such as “God is known apart from experience and through experience…” Perhaps you can explain what looks like a contradiction on the surface. The reason why I don’t think you grasp the problem of induction is because you state “knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.” without further explanation. That’s hardly a solution to the problem of induction.
Finally, I’m not sure what the point of your last comment is. This whole discussion is about whether the Christian worldview can rationally justify the use of inductive reasoning. My question to you was, “How do you know that your future revelations will resemble your past revelations?” You have not been able to rationally justify this as of yet. Your worldview is incoherent. I have given you plenty of opportunities to clarify your worldview, but I fear it will just be getting more incoherent as the discussion progresses.
If your whole argument is that the Christian worldview can provide a rational justification for induction whereas the non-Christian worldview cannot, well then where is it? Do you see how your argument fails and how I am not obligated to provide you with a solution to the problem of induction?
You appear so determined to refute what I am writing that you are reading “contradictory” things into my statements when they are not actually there. Either that or you are being intentionally dishonest. I hope the former is the case and not the latter and I also suspect that it is because this medium can sometimes be a rather bothersome means of communicating concerning topics like the one in question.
“My question to you was, ‘How do you know that your future revelations will resemble your past revelations?’”
You asked this question but did so after I had already offered a response to your previous question which was “How do you then justify the Uniformity of God?” In reply I mentioned that you were mixing categories in terms of Hume’s argument. You initially claimed that I had lost you here (even though you claimed to know Hume) to which I replied that if you were familiar with Hume then you would know what I was referring to. You finally explained the categories I was referring to and wrote, “Your answer was to make several statements about God, which in terms of Hume’s categories we can consider a relation of ideas since God is not an empirical fact.” So when you ask “How do you then justify the Uniformity of God?” you are mixing categories in terms of Hume’s argument. But you were not satisfied and wrote, “You then state that God has revealed the uniformity of nature to you, which we could categorize as a matter of fact since it is based upon your experience.”
Now I wrote, “God is known apart from experience and through experience such that knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.” What did I mean by “what has been known”? The answer is at the beginning of the sentence, “God is known”. Since God is known even apart from experience of ‘matters of fact’ there are no worries here.
You then asked, “How are you rationally justified in believing ‘what has been known’ will resemble what is known?” To this I responded, “I am rationally justified in believing that ‘what has been known’ will resemble ‘what is known’ because ‘what has been known’ already resembles ‘what is known’”. Now what are we talking about here? We are still talking about our knowledge of God. What has been known, God, will “resemble” what is known, God. The trouble is that God does not just resemble God, God is God. Thus I wrote, “What ‘has been known’ is actually the same as ‘what is known’”. The question was not at all difficult to answer and did not appear to be relevant to the discussion hence I concluded, “I think you may have meant to ask something else.”
What you did at that point is probably what concerns me the most. Instead of reading me in terms of the object of knowledge which is in this case God you instead moved to telling me that one phrase is not the same thing as a different phrase! You wrote, “Chris, ‘has been known’ is the present perfect continuous tense, which is typically used when an action started in the past and stopped recently or is continuing.” You continued, “It is not the same as ‘what is known’.” Do you really believe that I am so completely dumb that I do not know that the phrase “what has been known” is not the same thing as the phrase “what is known”? I assure you I can see the difference! Maybe I am just missing something in what you meant. The natural reading of what I wrote especially given the context is not at all what you interpreted my comment to mean. You asked, “How are you rationally justified in believing ‘what has been known’ will resemble what is known?” I am rationally justified in believing that ‘God who has been known’ “will resemble” ‘God who is known’ because the God known in both cases is the same God. Again I think you meant to ask something else.
Even though it was established that you were mixing categories when asking about the uniformity of God you moved on to state that “In Hume’s terms, you are stating that God is a ‘relation of ideas’ and simultaneously a ‘matter of fact’, i.e. that God is both necessary and contingent at the same time.” Interestingly enough you are the one who has done this since you both asked about the uniformity of God and then later wrote that the question would not apply to God in terms of Hume’s categories. You wrote, “This is contradictory.” I have never stated that God is a matter of fact or that He is contingent and it does not follow from what I have written.
Interestingly you later change what you believe is contradictory. You write, “I guess I’m confused as to what you mean when you state something self-contradictory such as ‘God is known apart from experience and through experience…’” Notice that the alleged “self-contradiction” is not the same as those you mentioned before. I suspect the trouble here rests in what one means by “experience”. God is known apart from the experience of any matter of fact. He is also known through matters of fact, but we really do not even need this latter claim for the purposes of our discussion.
You then quoted me, “…knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.” Again “what has been known”? God has been known. You write, “Basing your ‘matter of fact’ knowledge on a contradiction is not a rational justification.” If you were reading “what has been known” as referring to God as already mentioned then you would here be stating that God is “a contradiction” which is only an assertion. If you did mean this then you would need to support your assertion as well as explain why you acted beforehand as though you did not know that I was speaking of the object of knowledge (God). If you did not mean this (which is what I suspect to be the case) then it is sufficient to direct you toward what has just been discussed.
You write, “The reason why I don’t think you grasp the problem of induction is because you state ‘knowledge concerning ‘matter of fact’ is justified upon the basis of what has been known.’ without further explanation.” Again I assure you that I “grasp the problem of induction”. I have also provided more explanation than just stating what you quoted from me. Indeed you have not even recognized that “what has been known” refers to God even though that has been the point of the entire exchange!
You asked “How do you know that your future revelations will resemble your past revelations?” Since I do not know what you mean by “future revelations” I cannot provide a direct answer to your question. However it is not necessary that I do so since given that God has provided even one instance of a revelation of Himself (whatever that would look like) the problem of induction is no longer a problem at all.
You assert, “You have not been able to rationally justify this as of yet.” You not understanding or not accepting the rational justification for induction that I have provided does not substantiate your assertion. The same thing goes for your assertion that, “Your worldview is incoherent.” You would need to show this rather than just assert it. It amuses me that you assert this since I have explained that the non-Christian worldview is faced with the problem of induction. You continue to ignore my requests for you to provide the supposed solution you claimed that you had to the problem.
When you write things like, “I have given you plenty of opportunities to clarify your worldview, but I fear it will just be getting more incoherent as the discussion progresses” you imply for the readers that you are being patient with me while I seek to explain my position. However you came onto this site claiming a familiarity with my position that has not actually evidenced itself in our subsequent discussion. While you have either misunderstood or misrepresented what I have written neither constitutes having found some problem with my position other than your subjective dislike of it. I should not have to clarify my worldview if you are as familiar with it as you pretended to be when you came onto the site. Nevertheless I have attempted to clarify my worldview for you since you apparently believe that I would claim that God is contingent and that phrases which are different from each other are actually the same. How anyone familiar with Christianity and presuppositionalism or for that matter anyone who has followed the conversation could make such massive errors really escapes me but perhaps it is the case that you have done so in good faith. There is nothing incoherent about my worldview and it is incredible that someone should suggest that if there were something incoherent in my worldview that it would exist at such a shallow level as affirming that God is both necessary and contingent. Perhaps then my description of my worldview has been incoherent. However at this point I do not believe such incoherence, if it actually exists, is owing to my explanation.
“If your whole argument is that the Christian worldview can provide a rational justification for induction whereas the non-Christian worldview cannot, well then where is it?”
Again if you were familiar with presuppositional apologetics as you claim to be you would know that this is not my “whole argument”. Nevertheless, the Christian worldview allows for rational justification in induction because if it is true then everyone knows God even apart from what Hume would refer to as ‘matter of fact’. God is self-revealing, transcendent, immutable, orderly, sovereign, and good. Thus we are justified in believing that future experience concerning Hume’s ‘matter of fact’ will resemble past experience. Meanwhile the non-Christian worldview is faced with Hume’s problem of induction.
“Do you see how your argument fails and how I am not obligated to provide you with a solution to the problem of induction?”
Nonsense. My argument does not fail and you are obligated to provide me with a solution if you are going to engage in the discussion. You have consistently either misunderstood or misrepresented my argument and thus are not in a position to make such a claim. Since my argument is a two-step argument and you have only attempted to take issue with one step of the argument (the justification of induction in the Christian worldview) you would have only shown that a part of my argument fails if you had shown that much. From what I have explained above it is recognizable that you have not shown even that much, but even assuming that you have that still leaves the other step of my argument (the problem of justifying induction in the non-Chrsitian worldview). Even if the Christian worldview fails to account for induction we still have the problem to surmount if we are going to be able to intelligibly claim that the Christian worldview fails to account for induction. I am afraid you have not looked the skeptic in the eye. Now I have been more than generous in writing all of this out for you. You mentioned that you have some solution to the problem of induction. What was your solution?
On the surface it is somewhat amusing to read someone taking issue with the rationality of another worldview when his own worldview cannot justify the preconditions of intelligibility that are necessary to do so. On a somewhat deeper level it is quite sad to see. This is not just a game.
It’s a shame that you took the trouble to write so much that does not address the real question, though I do give you credit in making an attempt to provide a solution to the problem of induction. I will only address what you present as your “rational justification” for induction and ignore the series of red herrings and ad homs in your post.
Here is your argument:
“Nevertheless, the Christian worldview allows for rational justification in induction because if it is true then everyone knows God even apart from what Hume would refer to as ‘matter of fact’. God is self-revealing, transcendent, immutable, orderly, sovereign, and good. Thus we are justified in believing that future experience concerning Hume’s ‘matter of fact’ will resemble past experience. “
Unless you mean something entirely different by rational justification than what I have in mind, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Is this a deductive or inductive argument? For the purposes of clarification can you restate the argument in the form of a syllogism to clarify your argument? Thanks.
It did address the question Agreus. Your lack of specificity regarding such claims and the fallacies you accuse me of is just as telling as your constant refusal to provide me with an answer to the question I have been asking you since the beginning of the conversation. You have a problem with induction. You have not moved the discussion on this forward one bit.
If you will present your reason for thinking that Hume’s proposed solution to his problem will not work as well as your own alleged solution to the problem then we can continue the discussion. Otherwise I am done. I think I have been more than generous in giving my time to provide you with answers to your questions which were based on faulty premises and misrepresentations of my position which you claim to be familiar with.
Your argument has failed to establish that Christianity is rational and all non-Christian worldviews are irrational on the grounds that it has a rational justification for inductive reasoning whereas all others do not. In the future you should not use this argument. I trust that people are intelligent enough to see how deceptive it is to make an appeal to rationality on completely irrational grounds. Simply provide me with the syllogism of your argument. Otherwise, I agree that this discussion is done.
Your argument is akin to walking up to someone and asking that person to solve some logical paradox. If they cannot solve it, you declare your worldview to be superior because it somehow can rationally solve the paradox. You then spout off some vague nonsense about a supernatural deity accounting for the existence of the paradox, but actually fail to produce an argument that solves the paradox, let alone the deity that produced the existence of the paradox. That hardly counts for a coherent worldview.
I am not obligated to provide you with an answer to the problem of induction since it is irrelevant. If I felt that you wanted to have an honest philosophical discussion regarding the matter, then I might discuss it with you.
Wow, what an amazing display of hubris. “I decide the grounds by which the discussion proceeds, can misread, misapply, and misapprehend everything you say, and by those grounds, I claim victory. Oh, and you shouldn’t use the central argument of your position anymore, because I say so.”
He did provide an argument. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to that fact. Further, if you had any familiarity with the position offered, as Chris has been pointing out to you all along, you wouldn’t be asking questions like “is this argument deductive or inductive”. The answer would be obvious to you. Neither.
Further, let me point out that the other two posters on this site have written extensively on this very subject – both on this blog, and in print. I happen to know that Chris’ thesis for his BA was on Hume and induction. BK has an essay in the book “The Portable Presuppositionalist” – also on induction.
It’s uncanny how you have misrepresented the position of your opponent throughout this discussion, shown a lack of basic knowledge concerning the question at hand – yet your responses have claimed victory throughout – despite what is obvious to even an introductory student of Van Til, or Hume – you have understood neither the problem offered by Hume, nor the solution offered by Christianity. Then, the parting shot, claiming “dishonesty.” Simply unbelievable.
RazorKiss, feel free to provide a syllogism so we can take a closer look at the structure of the argument. Then at least we’ll be able to define the argument in clearer terms. Otherwise, all you are doing is what Chris was doing earlier, which was a whole lot of handwaving. Thanks.
https://choosinghats.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/von.jpg
Assume the categories I just said are not applicable. Define the question so as to deny anything not in those categories. Rinse, repeat.
Why are we presuppositionalists, again? This very reason. There is no neutrality – and there is nothing which we do not approach with our presuppositions in place.
“Your argument is akin to walking up to someone and asking that person to solve some logical paradox. If they cannot solve it, you declare your worldview to be superior because it somehow can rationally solve the paradox. You then spout off some vague nonsense about a supernatural deity accounting for the existence of the paradox, but actually fail to produce an argument that solves the paradox, let alone the deity that produced the existence of the paradox. That hardly counts for a coherent worldview.”
That’s great. Presuppositionalism in a nutshell.
Can you explain how “paradox” has any meaningful definition, by your standards? I find it interesting that “paradox” is “any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.” While “coherent” means “congruity; consistency.” Something which contains paradox is somehow more consistent, more non-contradictory, than the worldview which asserts that there is no such thing as a paradox?
I also find it interesting that yet again, the position we hold is being misrepresented. We don’t claim to *solve* the paradox – we’re saying that only in the unbeliever’s worldview is it accounted a paradox, and further, that paradox itself is inconsistent with that worldview. Ergo, paradox is not only a borrowed concept, that depends on an objective, externally determined standard, but inconsistent with the unbeliever’s worldview to begin with – it assumes that there is something contradictory according to that borrowed, but inconsistent (with the unbeliever’s own stated position) standard.
Not at all noen. I have not asked anyone to solve any “logical paradox”. I have asked you to provide your non-Christian solution to Hume’s problem of induction. You failed to do so and then left the discussion. Agreus then failed to provide his alleged non-Christian solution to Hume’s problem of induction. So you are hardly entitled to your vicory dance. There is very little room for spin since the discussion is recorded in text. Ignoring serious philosophical problems does not make them go away.
There is no “vague nonsense” in my responses to Agreus either. If you can find a problem with what I have offered then go ahead and let me know what that problem is. Typing out a lot of rhetoric and name calling is not the same thing as finding a problem.
So understand noen: You have a skeptical worry in your worldview. You have offered no solution that satisfies the problem. You have dismissed the entirety of my responses and presuppositional apologetics without providing any reason for doing so and any reason you offer will be undercut by the skeptical problem anyway.
This is an apologetics website. If you want a *reasoned defense* then we are willing to work with you. If you do not then you are wasting our time.
“You failed to do so and then left the discussion.”
It seemed pointless to go on since I gave you my answer but you refuse to accept it. You also seem to misunderstand Hume. He did not, as you appear to claim, “refute science” (or casualty) what he did was to demonstrate that no matter how many white swans we observe we can never really be sure that our inductive inference “all swans are white” must be necessarily true.
So what Hume’s skepticism questioned was not casualty but rather the laws that we formulate from our observation. There are black swans. We would have been in error to try to deduce otherwise from limited observation. But that’s ok. I can live with not having absolute truth about the world. I can live with science being a series of guesses backed by reason that get better and better and better over time.
“You have dismissed the entirety of my responses and presuppositional apologetics without providing any reason for doing so ”
I think presuppositional apologetics is dishonest and it’s method of transcendental argument invalid.
“If you want a *reasoned defense* then we are willing to work with you.”
I don’t think you are reasonable. You have a very narrow and rigid ideology that is immune to criticism. Both here and on Urban Philosophy you’ve not demonstrated any flexibility at all.
Yes noen I refused to accept it because it did not work. I provided an argument for that. Go back and read if you forgot because you have not responded since then.
Hume did not question causality? No one who has even the slightest clue about what Hume wrote would ever make this claim.You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about on Hume. Additionally even if I have Hume wrong (which I know I don’t) then you would still have my skeptical problems to concern yourself with. I already mentioned this and you dodged it as well. Yet you pretend to know what is going on. You are either trolling or you are a liar. Either way I am now done discussing this with you as well. I hope that for your sake you will understand the seriousness of your rebellion and repent. God is gracious and will not turn you away.
“There is no “vague nonsense” in my responses to Agreus either. If you can find a problem with what I have offered then go ahead and let me know what that problem is. Typing out a lot of rhetoric and name calling is not the same thing as finding a problem.”
Read your response on 25 April 2010 at 3:06 am. You have yet to clarify by responding to this post. Transcendental arguments tend to be easily refuted once broken down into a syllogism, which is why I suspect you aren’t replying. There’s intellectual honesty for you.
“Not at all noen. I have not asked anyone to solve any “logical paradox”. I have asked you to provide your non-Christian solution to Hume’s problem of induction.”
We are not obligated to solve the problem if your worldview cannot solve it. Your argument doesn’t get past the first phase.
“So you are hardly entitled to your vicory dance. There is very little room for spin since the discussion is recorded in text. ”
I encourage anyone who is still following this discussion to go back and read everything again and see where the spinning is taking place. It takes the form of avoiding the real issue and performing alot of handwaving and ad homs to avoid having to provide a solution to inductive reasoning.
Here is what Chris stated earlier… “Since my argument is a two-step argument and you have only attempted to take issue with one step of the argument (the justification of induction in the Christian worldview) you would have only shown that a part of my argument fails if you had shown that much.”
I have shown that much. Again, your argument is akin to trying to stump someone with a difficult philosophical question, then spouting some vague nonsense which isn’t even an argument, and declaring victory because you’ve solved the problem. That is really laughable.
RazorsKiss, do you understand the modal objection that I’ve raised by forcing Chris to make his own argument intelligible? The same modal objection can be raised with your last post.
Agreus claimed throughout the discussion that he understood Hume and presuppositionalism well enough to refute both though when called upon to do so he refuses to produce his alleged refutations. He then requested that I put Hume and my argument in syllogistic form to clarify them. Yet he supposedly understands both better than I do.
Unfortunately for him I do not have the time to play those sort of games. I am also having difficulty understanding his objections because they are not all in symbolic.
I’d like to see the Christian explanation for induction clearly and convincingly laid out as well. If it’s hard to explain on Atheism, but also hard to explain on Theism, I don’t see how it can be an argument for Theism.
I cannot make any promises about what you would be convinced by. However I have laid out a sketch of the explanation in the comments of this post as well as elsewhere. There is also a chapter on it in The Portable Presuppositionalist.
It is not hard to explain on Atheism because it is not explainable. It is not hard to explain on Theism because it is as easy as the children’s song “He’s Got The Whole World In His Hands”. Hume’s presuppositional solution is justified outside of itself in the Christian worldview.
It is no coincidence that the initial naive response of most people when presented with the problem is to admit that we do not have certain knowledge through science and then to appeal to past experience. The answers are essentially correct and we give them because we are God’s creatures and we live in God’s world.
It is also no coincidence that most unbelievers recoil at being presented with the problem because it seems so overwhelmingly true that we are able to obtain even scientific knowledge. Yet the unbeliever cannot justify such knowledge if the non-Christian worldview is true. Again this is exactly the response we would expect if Christianity were true (which it is).
“Agreus claimed throughout the discussion that he understood Hume and presuppositionalism well enough to refute both though when called upon to do so he refuses to produce his alleged refutations.”
Excellent example of a strawman fallacy. There is not one instance when I claimed such and in fact throughout the discussion I claim that I won’t refute Hume because it’s irrelevant. Does Chris really take the people following this discussion to be idiots who can’t figure out what is going on?
The argument that Chris puts forward does fail and in fact, if you want to talk symbolic logic, here is how it fails.
If (A and B), then X
NOT (A and B)
So no conclusion can be reached. Stated explicitly in English: If non-Christian worldviews cannot dissolve/solve Hume’s problem of induction and Christianity can dissolve/solve Hume’s problem of induction, then non-Christian worldviews are incoherent. Non-Christian worldviews cannot dissolve/solve Hume’s problem of induction. No conclusion can be reached.
“God’s got the whole world in his hands.” is a superficial explanation and not an argument dissolving Hume’s logical problem. An explanation could be I intuit that the past will resemble the future and that is my “rational justification” of the problem. Does that really get around Hume’s problem?
Once again, dismissing the solution (which has been offered, for those willing to read the comments presented) on the basis of *a system which cannot account for it’s own ability to argue at all, let alone prove anything at all* – is the fundamental argument of the transcendental. The fundamental misunderstanding showing up throughout the comments of our atheist visitors is very clear. They don’t get the direction or the nature of the transcendental argument. An example: Agreus has asked both of us for a _syllogism_ of the Transcendental and/or our answer for the inductive problem. The transcendental is necessarily _not_ deductive. The answer to what is necessarily a transcendental argument is *itself necessarily transcendental*.
Let that sink in a bit, and I believe you will see the nature of the problem. Once the nature of the problem is grasped, the solution becomes obvious. The only possible answer to a TA is a TA. What is the only possible basis for a TA?
The Transcendental argument begs the question.
I am not an atheist.
Hume did not argue that we must abandon induction, like causation, to function on a daily basis as long as we recognize the limitations of our knowledge. We are wrong to justify our belief in causation by claiming that reason supports it or that we can absolutely know that one event causes the other. Hume argues for induction, what he calls inference, not against it.
It is a severe misreading of Hume to claim that he refutes science.
While I do agree that the TAG has problems, it doesn’t seem to beg the question. Merely my $0.02
The reason why I ask for a syllogism is not because I don’t understand TAG rather because I was forcing Chris to be consistent with his definition of “rational justification”. On the one hand he wants us to solve Hume’s problem of induction through logical argumentation, which is completely different from the “rational justification” that he is providing, which is merely an explanation. In other words, he is committing the fallacy of equivocation. Providing an explanation is not the same as providing a logical argument. Whenever you waste your time arguing TAG with someone, pin them down on their definition of “rational justification” and make them consistently use the term throughout the argument.
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/dodge-logo.jpg
“Hume did not argue that we must abandon induction, like causation, to function on a daily basis as long as we recognize the limitations of our knowledge.” – noen
“On our answer to this question must depend the validity of the whole of our expectations as to the future, the whole of the results obtained by induction, and in fact practically all the beliefs upon which our daily life is based.” – Bertrand Russell
“It is a severe misreading of Hume to claim that he refutes science.” – noen
“The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life.” – Bertrand Russell
Surely noen is a troll.
I did not say those things. What is your justification for your claim that the quotes you provide were made by me?
First and second quotes here.
I’d say the justification is reading what you typed, myself.
Wow.
“I’d say the justification is reading what you typed, myself.”
By your own argument you cannot prove it.
A — You see my nickname.
B –You see words typed on the screen.
What is your justification for believing that A caused B?
lol
“The answer to what is necessarily a transcendental argument is *itself necessarily transcendental*.”
As you know, the TA is a revisit of Kant’s transcendental argument, however it does so with a great deal of arrogance by claiming all other metaphysical explanations are incoherent with the exception of Christian theism. Because the propositions allowed to function as its premises are vague and questionable the TA fails to establish a transcendental of any kind.
Most people who adhere to one view claim that all other views are lacking in some area. Since Hume established by way of argumentation and not “a great deal of arrogance” that induction is unreasonable Kant was forced to offer his transcendental approach to knowledge in response. noen’s account of Hume and history does not square with these facts.
One who holds to any particular view virtually always does so because other views are thought to lack something that the view adhered to does not even if the acceptance of the view is ultimately subjective. In the context of the current discussion the argument offered by Hume has been turned on the skeptic. Christianity does not have such difficulties because there is a rationale for belief in the inductive principle. One need not get stuck in Hume’s vicious loop. For obvious reasons Kant often comes up in discussions of TAG. However TAG is actually an anti-Kantian argument.
I think everyone has had more than enough opportunity to discuss his or her thoughts in this thread.
Comments are now closed.