Illogical Leap: Why Harriman's account of induction is daft nonsense

[George H. Smith]

I'm disappointed that George wishes to rate his authoritarian stance as more valuable to him than continued debate. I'm sure I could learn much from him, but not if he's not aware of what I actually think.

Shayne

Should you ever wish to stop whining and discuss Hume instead, let me know.

Ghs

[sjw]

I'm disappointed that George wishes to rate his authoritarian stance as more valuable to him than continued debate. I'm sure I could learn much from him, but not if he's not aware of what I actually think.

Shayne

Should you ever wish to stop whining and discuss Hume instead, let me know.

Ghs

You may decree it to be whining, but I see it as an attitude problem on your part that is interfering with rational discussion. The errors in your interpretations of me are in the same category as your jumping to the conclusion that I'm a "weasel." I don't see the point in hearing more nonsense interpretations about what I mean, regardless of your erudition in other areas.

I appreciate the efforts you expended above, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be stubborn about this particular issue.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

Frankly, I have never understood what is so interesting about Hume. I had to read him. It was all barroom bullshit built on arbitrary assertions and the stolen concept. For him, empiricism meant anecdote, not experiment. Is there any interesting insight he has I've missed?

[sjw]

Frankly, I have never understood what is so interesting about Hume. I had to read him. It was all barroom bullshit built on arbitrary assertions and the stolen concept. For him, empiricism meant anecdote, not experiment. Is there any interesting insight he has I've missed?

I suspect that whether you see anything interesting in Hume's epistemological observations is a kind of litmus test to whether you belong to this or that school of philosophy, akin to something that would separate one into category of either Aristotelian or Platonist, with the consequent predictability of one school tending to want to insult the other as not being able to see something or other.

I think George is right that Hume's epistemology is very slim, he doesn't (as far as I know) say anything about abstraction, which is pretty much the only topic that Objectivists talk about.

Shayne

[Xray]

The conclusion of a deductive syllogism is logically necessitated by the very structure of the syllogism itself. The conclusion follows in virtue of the syllogistic form, regardless of the particular premises.

Which means that a "logical" conclusion can also be based on a false premise.

Whereas if the premise is true, then the conclusion of a correcty perfomed deductive syllogism must be true as well.

But how else can it be determinded whether a premise is 'true' if not again by inductive reasoning? How do those attacking inductive reasoning respond to this objection?

One great merit of Harriman's book is that he dares to challenge the conventional wisdom about causation.

What exactly is the conventional wisdom about causation?

Frankly, I have never understood what is so interesting about Hume. I had to read him. It was all barroom bullshit built on arbitrary assertions and the stolen concept. For him, empiricism meant anecdote, not experiment. Is there any interesting insight he has I've missed?

What about out the radical insight that an "ought" cannot not be derived from an "is"?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

I think George is right that Hume's epistemology is very slim, he doesn't (as far as I know) say anything about abstraction, which is pretty much the only topic that Objectivists talk about.

Shayne

Hume talks about ideas and impressions.

Ba'al Chatzaf