Unknown comments on Science Isn't Strict Enough - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 16 May 2008 06:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (60)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Unknown 21 May 2008 03:13:17AM 0 points [-]

Inductive skepticism, as I understand it, is Hume's position that observing the sun rise today does not increase the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow.

This would be true only on the assumption that there is a 100% chance that whether or not the sun rises is completely random. If there is at least a one in a billion chance that the sun rises according to rule, then observing the sun rise once will increase the probability that it will rise next time.

How does a position merit the title "skeptical" when it maintains an infinite certainty of something completely contrary to experience, namely that everything is totally random?