= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
faul_sname comments on What do we already have right? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
... and is correct.
Touche.
I may be prattling on about something I don't know jack about, but I don't think all philosophers accept induction as a valid principle.
Most people aren't philosophers who reject the principle of induction.
Wasn't the question about what they have right?
Yes. And, conditional on induction being valid, everyone who doesn't reject induction gets it right. And very few people reject induction.
I'm sure there are philosophers who say they don't, but I guarantee you they act as if they do. Even if they don't know anything about electronics, they'd still expect the light to come on when they flip the switch.
That's... not really an argument. Of course everyone has to act pragmatically; we wouldn't even be able to think if we didn't. But that's quite different from establishing the validity of the principle itself.
Well, it doesn't establish that induction is always valid, so I guess we might not really be disagreeing. But, pragmatically, everyone basically has to assume that it usually works, or is likely to work in whatever the particular case is. I think it's a good enough heuristic to be called a rational principle that people already have down.
OK, forget it.
I disagree with "common sense." In my experience, when questioning people about what they mean by common sense, I find that they usually mean "general principles that seem like obviously correct to me." And that doesn't even guarantee that they are correct.