tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post45098126294575429..comments2024-01-21T14:29:38.613-08:00Comments on Dangerous Idea 2: Hasker on skeptical threats, best explanations, and transcendental argumentsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-38369549341798200172008-05-06T15:18:00.000-07:002008-05-06T15:18:00.000-07:00Victor:The Argument From Reason has been wikified:...Victor:<BR/><BR/>The Argument From Reason has been wikified:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_%28book%29#The_Argument_From_Reason<BR/><BR/>Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-85524788822623543572008-04-30T21:41:00.000-07:002008-04-30T21:41:00.000-07:00WakeFor a brief history and analysis, you could do...Wake<BR/><BR/>For a brief history and analysis, you could do worse than the online Stanford encylopedia article on the problem of induction:<BR/><BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/Darek Barefoothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10372516755957865348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-21746301578347825472007-11-29T20:41:00.000-08:002007-11-29T20:41:00.000-08:00Now see, that's just the blistering thing. Everyon...Now see, that's just the blistering thing. Everyone SO FAR that I've come into contact with claims to be in this field. I freely admit to not having the discernment as to the quality of their statements and what these individuals know. But stillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-77766178030026629652007-11-29T15:58:00.000-08:002007-11-29T15:58:00.000-08:00Those people touting the end of induction in scien...Those people touting the end of induction in science are likely not scientists. Popper's falsificationism can be looked at as a specific instance of a more general probabilistic perspective on scientific inference (Popper fought hard against this, but unsuccessfully in my opinion).<BR/><BR/>According to Popper all scientific inference is deductive, in which case his falsificationism might gain a little more traction. This is just wrong. Pick up any scientific journal for all the statistical probabilistic methods employed in arguing for conclusions.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-84213298690150605652007-11-29T15:52:00.000-08:002007-11-29T15:52:00.000-08:00forgot to add:There is no issue with Induction. I...forgot to add:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/><BR/>There is no issue with Induction. It's not a logical belief. There is no logical basis and it could be wrong. This is why modern science has rejected verificationism and accepted falsificationism. (Some dense philosophers with reading comprehension problems have asserted that falsificationism merely moves the induction. They make this assertion for one reason - they fail to understand falsificationism and attribute reasoning to its adherents which they do not hold.) <BR/><BR/>With all of the bluster about brain research, we nevertheless have made amazing strides in that arena. I recently attended a talk by Jim Olds (from GMU's Krasnow Institute) at the Smithsonian Castle where he updated us on where he sees the technology going. We don't have all the answers, but we're getting there. <BR/><BR/>Free will is a separate issue from falsification and induction. At this point it is a mystery. But it has nothing whatever to do with evolution. If it makes you feel better, you can believe that a god imbued some sufficiently evolved forms with free will. That's got nothing to do with what science can tell us, but beliefs don't have to be scientific.</I>Wakefield Tolberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214688786380814406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-17015717022100652742007-11-29T15:00:00.000-08:002007-11-29T15:00:00.000-08:00Speaking of "skeptical threats", is it my understa...Speaking of "skeptical threats", is it my understanding that that science has now thorwn out the whole realm of "induction."?<BR/><BR/>Notice, for example, one recent posting on a skeptic site:<BR/><BR/><I>The induction point is irrelevant and has been solved by falsificationism - I say "solved" because it's been thrown out the window and a new paradigm brought to fore. You're right that the issue of free will is as yet unsolved. It's more correct to say that it is unknown. We don't know whether free will exists. We can take the path of the religionist and just make stuff up or we can say we don't know. I go with "we don't know." </I><BR/><BR/>and so on...Wakefield Tolberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214688786380814406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-75573207813163719972007-11-28T22:52:00.000-08:002007-11-28T22:52:00.000-08:00Curious. I had always assumed that the arguments f...Curious. I had always assumed that the arguments from reason were transcendental. They are more specific than many such arguments, but they nonetheless do seem to be transcendental in their essence. I'm not sure what else one might call them?Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.com