Unfair Standards

[Malintent]

The concept of usefulness is only justified if there's a world where things can be useful.

My concept of knowledge doesn't rely on my belief in the existence of a material world or on my idea of a material world.

The notion of knowledge of the material world is metaphysical. In practice, it is redundant. We don't need it. It's just a way of talking. The notion of belief is sufficient to explain everything we need in relation to the material world.

As you should all know.
EB

I definitely needs to know if a tiger is totally safe to be near or if it may rip me to pieces.

Everything that is worth to know comes, ab ovo, from induction.

one cannot use induction alone to determine if the tiger is safe. that is not knowledge, it is merely a belief.. or a hypothesis at best.
experimentation / observation is needed. If you observe a tiger ripping something to pieces then you are adding observation to your deduction / induction, and you are starting to attain 'real' knowledge.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Unfair criticism. My focus on induction was because I replied to the OP.

Induction is crucial to science. I fail to see how a process based on induction could qualify as knowledge.

Theory is justified by induction and theory is crucial to the idea of propositional knowledge, which is the kind science is said to be.

Experimentation doesn't change the inductive status of a theory. Repeating experiments only brings in more induction, so to speak.

Experimentation does make scientist more confident about their theories but confidence doesn't transmute scientific beliefs into knowledge.
EB

My criticism was that you seem to claim that all scientific knowledge is derived through induction... when in 'reality', scientific knowledge comes from confirmation in the 'real world'.. not through induction.

I already responded to that.

You called scientific knowledge induction,

No. I said science is based on induction.

and further claimed it not part of the 'real world'.

You do have a lot of imagination.

That was my criticism.

Good.

Thanks for your contribution.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The concept of usefulness is only justified if there's a world where things can be useful.

My concept of knowledge doesn't rely on my belief in the existence of a material world or on my idea of a material world.

The notion of knowledge of the material world is metaphysical. In practice, it is redundant. We don't need it. It's just a way of talking. The notion of belief is sufficient to explain everything we need in relation to the material world.

As you should all know.
EB

I definitely needs to know if a tiger is totally safe to be near or if it may rip me to pieces.

I don't think you need to know, no.

Everything that is worth to know comes, ab ovo, from induction.

You believe that and it's a fine philosophy but if you don't know something, how would you know it's not worth to know? How would you know you could only know it through induction?
EB

 

[Juma]

Everything that is worth to know comes, ab ovo, from induction.

You believe that and it's a fine philosophy but if you don't know something, how would you know it's not worth to know? How would you know you could only know it through induction?
EB

You got it wrong. I dont say that deduction isnt useful. I say that deduction doesnt bring in new information. For that we need empirical studies.

 

[Juma]

I definitely needs to know if a tiger is totally safe to be near or if it may rip me to pieces.

Everything that is worth to know comes, ab ovo, from induction.

one cannot use induction alone to determine if the tiger is safe. that is not knowledge, it is merely a belief.. or a hypothesis at best.
experimentation / observation is needed. If you observe a tiger ripping something to pieces then you are adding observation to your deduction / induction, and you are starting to attain 'real' knowledge.

You got me wrong. Of course you need empiri. Thats my point. But then induction is the base of everything else. Where comes the rules of deduction from? Induction!

 

[Speakpigeon]

You believe that and it's a fine philosophy but if you don't know something, how would you know it's not worth to know? How would you know you could only know it through induction?
EB

You got it wrong. I dont say that deduction isnt useful.

Please, try once in a little while to read what people actually write. Where is it you see I used the word "deduction"!?
EB