Skepticism (David Hume)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

This script is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Perception" eBook, available on mybook.to/philosophyvibe3 The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2

[@m.kurbah8485]

Love it. Kindly do on philosophical skepticism in general. Pyrohonian sceptics . Radical skepticism etc.. would really appreciate it.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you for the recommendation, we will look into this.

[@LinebackerTuba]

Such an underrated channel. You guys deserve more subs.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you. Really hoping we can grow this channel over time and help more people with their studies.

[@JRoseKatz98]

@@PhilosophyVibe love your channel. Would love to help grow awareness of channels like this. ❤️

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Jessica Katz Thank you very much. 😀 Anything you can do to help would be much appreciated. If you have any questions feel free to contact directly: [e-mail] Glad you are enjoying the content.

[@north_star_yt]

What I’m learning at 36yrs old is that all my reasoning of myself and the world up until now has been collected inductively. Which is why I live in such mental anguish. Everything is constantly changing and the minute I come to a “concrete conclusion” about life or just my life, I am shortly thereafter proven wrong. It’s exhausting and disheartening but I think perhaps the problem lies in the non acceptance of what is, too many expectations of the supposed greatness of human life and the burden and weight that comes from needing to find a purpose in order to have meaning and thus fulfillment, is painful af and keeps me in a constant state of confusion.

[@themanthelegend93]

this is honestly better than any in person class I've taken so far.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, so happy you are finding the videos useful.

[@vblake530530]

As a medical school professor, I use this concept all the time as a way to help students learn to diagnose.

[@calvingrondahl1011]

David Hume was honest yet practical and pleasant to be around so says The School of Life. Thank you PV.

[@ASleepyMoose]

Amazing video. Really helped me in my college philosophy course

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much. Really glad this has helped.

[@daithi1966]

Euclid's _Geometry_ starts with a set of axioms that were just assumed as self evident and true, and then these axioms were used as building blocks to create additional knowledge by applying reason and logic to these axioms. Descartes did something similar starting from the single axiom of "I think therefore I am." However, there is no reason you can't start from a larger set of axioms that includes the existence of a material world and laws like cause and effect. As long as my reality logically follows from these axioms I can live without being skeptical of all knowledge. If I find a contradiction then I'd be willing re-examine my beliefs/axioms. If this occurred then I'd also have to find a new set of axioms/beliefs to base my reality upon, and I can't imagine what that would like.

[@donkaputjaza]

The knowledge that i can confidently say i have/know is not knowing. And that's the beauty of life. Loved the video

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed.

[@brianmitchell132]

I just finished the chapter on David Hume for my Intro to Philosophy class. Working on a term paper about David Hume, this video was very helpful. Wonderful work!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much, so happy to hear this video helped!

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

Hume is my fav

[@pupg9345]

Do you have notes on hume?

[@mufeedaUnais]

Really helpful for better studies... Just loved this ❤

[@Hek87]

Well done gentlemen! Learned a lot in a short amount of time.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Our pleasure

[@rocio8851]

You refuted the most self-refuting Philosophy in less than 10 minutes. Wonderful!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you :)

[@StanBrouwerURL]

This is what me and my friends sound like when we're philosophizing while stoned

[@blondiecnt7820]

Amazing job guys, I had an essay for my university and your video helped me very much. Thanks for all the good work keep up!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, glad this helped. Best of luck in the essay.

[@abdimalikgurhan3194]

Thanks for making philosophical ideas very simple! This is great channel!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much, happy you like the content.

[@diegomartinez2414]

I have though about all of this a lot and about everything, really, and have reached a point where I know the answer to all of the questions. I came to this illumination thanks to skepticism

[@tonyhouston5240]

Diego Martinez how does this not have more thumbs up haha

[@SaS-xl5of]

Detailed information with easy to understand. You save my day ❤️

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad it helped :D

[@Jaykerz]

This is helping with my philosophy class so much! Thank you!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad we could help :)

[@sofiaortega7168]

Amazing videos, very informative and everything I see in class is here!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you, glad you're enjoying the videos :)

[@wesley2254]

Thanks, this helped me tremendously with my philosophy class! The voices were a little bit too monotone though.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thanks, glad this helped you.

[@Science_-]

the distinction i find helpful is between practical world and theory world. In practical world or mode, i work making some assumptions. In theory world, I theorize and wonder and ponder my existence. Here, no assumption is safe from doubt.

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

Fallibilist view of knowledge is, I believe, the only optimal alternative to radical skepticism. Do a video please on fallibilism. Love the vibes!

[@uri_k]

Nice! I loved the way you guys included what seems to be a comprehensive and concise introduction to the subject, as well as the critically examined point of view of it, well done, subscribed!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you! Glad you liked the video :)

[@spacesciencelab]

One argument against the candle argument but with the scenario of boiling water for pasta... If one were to fixate on the boiling water, it may seem as though time stretches endlessly, requiring eight long minutes to reach the desired state. However, if you were to step away momentarily, returning shortly after, it might appear as though the water has reached its boiling point almost instantaneously, defying the typical perception of time's passage.

[@adetolaadedeji7273]

An argument for the issue I cause and effect. I still believe that to be valid because it still follows the same order input to output the only difference with the weather, it is that it is multiple… it cannot exist outside the multiple possibilities just as the case with one output cannot exist outside the one possibility, therefore the assume the multiple outputs a whole.

[@evad7933]

This links in well to the JTB definition of 'knowledge', where justification is of an apriori type.

[@alolaunica]

Excellent video! Love all the effort put into the animations and concise narration, thank you. Subscribed!! (Also sick name xD)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you so much, very happy that you enjoyed the video 😀and thanks for the sub.

[@boutheinakorchani8437]

thank you for the amazing explanatory video, helped me in my assignment but only got me more and more interested in Hume's views and to read about how other philosophers tried to refute it. keep up the great work :)

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you for watching, glad you found this video helpful :)

[@abioyeopeyemi4222]

Great explaination. Thank you.

[@rvahini1183]

How can someone basically live their life by just doubting everything? Ans:- Hume:- 7:10

[@jamestagge3429]

One more attempt.............That by which Hume was able to formulate his proposition and the context in which it functioned and was considered, defines certain necessities that he could not deny OR HE COULD NOT HAVE FORMULATED IT TO BEGIN WITH. Either it is, or it ain’t. 1. He chose to employ in his proposition the concepts of billiard balls specifically to the exclusion of all other things. This cannot be questioned. This means by definition that he had to have recognized and acknowledged the physical characteristics of all of those entities from which he chose the billiard balls or how could he have decided on the billiard balls as opposed to something else such as crochet balls? So the assertion of the form and function of all of those entities in material reality that he had to have perceived (or again, he could not have made the distinct choice he did) was that by which he was able to choose. That he claimed to recognized only sense impressions does not alter the point. There is no escaping this. 2. In that he had to have recognized the characteristics of the billiard balls or the sense impressions of them, again, the only means by which he could have chosen them to the exclusion of all else, he had to have known that motion was not one of those characteristics. First, motion is not tangible (but rather a phenomenon) as is all of that by which the billiard balls were defined in their physicality or the sense impressions which were drawn from them. Secondly, were motion a characteristic of billiard balls, both not just one would have been moving. That the one ball was moving then has to have been the effect of a cause of that motion having been imparted. There is no escaping this. 3. Then, that he had to have known that motion had to have been imparted to the moving ball, he had to have understood that that which imparted that motion was itself a moving entity for which motion was also not a characteristic. I am sorry but this is cause and effect, like it or not. What Hume did in the formulation of his theory was akin to “appealing to truths to formulate a position which denied truth”. He doesn’t get to have done that any more than the rest of us. That entities are distinct, they are that by their characteristics. That they are distinct, they are chosen for their characteristics because each imposes a specific effect from which to choose. The balls were chosen because they would roll, the reality of that to which he had to have surrendered, a given because they were his choice. He did not choose bricks or the like because they wouldn’t roll, necessary to the purpose of the analogy. That recognition in part defeats his theory of no cause and effect. A final point…..the proposition that ball 1 hitting ball 2 would cause it to move, is inductive only in the most general context of consideration. However, in a sub-context where we consider that motion had to have been imparted to the moving ball, it is deductive. His theory makes no sense.

[@DinoDillinger]

Should we say skepticism is absurd? Yes, yes we should.

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

Why is it absurd?

[@DinoDillinger]

@@Sazi_de_Afrikan, because even the most ardent believer of skepticism will not practice it's logical conclusions when he/she leaves their house in the morning. That's my viewpoint anyway.

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

@Hrithik Ravi Exactly. Peirce's Pragmatism has infected the minds of people

[@DinoDillinger]

Could we perhaps agree on the term "useless"?

[@yunghp97]

@@DinoDillinger Exactly so true.

[@ekremgj]

Love you guys...you expand my horizont in Philosophy!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Excellent, so glad we can help.

[@jamestagge3429]

Hume defined an analogy employing two billiard balls and claimed our inability to know unequivocally via induction that a second stationary ball, ball 2 would be made to move if struck by a moving ball, ball 1. Both balls were on a level billiard table. Hume chose the billiard balls for his analogy to the exclusion of all other possible objects, e.g., crochet balls, bricks, rocks, apples, etc. How was he able to do this? Because all of those objects are distinct in their physicality/characteristics and in that, different from each other in some measure. If then he made that choice it was by his recognition of his ability to distinguish between them, the characteristics consequent of their form and function. So, there can be no claim by anyone that he did not or could not know of or respect their physicality, i.e., their physical characteristics. Hume also defined one of the balls, ball 1 as moving and ball 2 as stationary (initially). By definition then, he knew of the phenomenon of motion and that it effected an object’s physical status in a given context of consideration. He then claimed that we could not know via induction that should ball 1 strike ball 2 that it would cause the latter to move, that we could only expect that it would but due only to our experience in witness to such. So, again, Hume knew of the characteristics of the billiard balls which he would have had to, to have chosen them as opposed to all other objects. He also acknowledged his understanding of the phenomenon of motion (of ball 1) for it is structural to the analogy and since he knew of the physical characteristics of the balls (by which he chose them), he would have had to have known that motion was NOT part of those characteristics for it is intangible and only “of concern for” or “about” the physicality of the ball. He knew that ball 1 was moving and though exactly the same in all physical respects to ball 2, ball 2 was NOT moving but stationary. Why? because motion had been imparted to ball 1. In other words, motion was connected in some way to the ball which was moving (there cannot be motion without its object (without the object moving)) and motion was an effect of the progressive change of the physical status of the ball in a particular context. If then the motion was NOT a physical characteristic of ball 1 and was a phenomenon which was not present in a ball being itself (as with ball 2 which was stationary before being struck by ball 1), in and of itself. Absent some imposition upon ball 1 which was otherwise in its natural state, or stationary, BY DEFINITION, motion has to have been imparted to ball 1 (motion was not there otherwise). By our understanding of this in all that stated above, we know that the motion of ball 1 would have had to have been imparted by another object which struck it (so that object was moving before it struck ball 1), imparting that motion. Remember that ball 1 could not have merely started moving by itself with no interaction of other objects because motion is a phenomenon not part of the physicality of the ball but rather “about it”. The motion had to have come from somewhere and something. After being struck, the motion was there. The only source of the motion was the object which struck it which possessed the phenomenon of motion prior to the strike. Thus we know unequivocally that ball 1 striking ball 2 would cause it to move as with the striking of ball 1 by the unnamed object (a pool cue perhaps). Any comments would be very welcome.

[@mikekronner1611]

This was very helpful for a discussion board in my philosophy 101 class! Just had to get over the monotone of John's cigarette voice haha

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Cigarette and whisky :D Thanks for watching glad it helped.

[@TomCarberry413]

Generally experiences of others. This extra step -- that most of our inductive reasoning relies on what others told us they know -- adds a giant level of uncertainty to our knowledge. "They" say scientific reasoning depends on observation of nature. But whose observation? Our own or someone we have never met and know nothing about? As an example that tends to trigger people, "they" say the earth rotates on its axis, orbits around the sun, and circles the galaxy as part of the solar system. Yet I can't feel any motion. Why should I believe it? Because "smart" people said it, and as Chico Marx said, Who you gonna believe, me or your eyes?" Most of what we call "science" consists of BS made up by "smart" people who have license to change their theories whenever observation contradicts them, without penalty. Hence such BS as Dark Matter.

[@dericanslum1696]

...content...A+... ...voice acting...wow...just wow...

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you! Hoping the wow was because you also liked the voice acting :D

[@Lilletrilletott]

Thank you so much! I am doing my university examen philosophicum course (obligatory philosophy course in Norway) and this is really helpful for my paper!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome. Best of luck in the uni course!

[@jorgerivera9885]

What type of jobs will that degree get you? Asking for a friend?

[@navis5284]

That the future will resemble the past is fundamental to induction, but Hume was troubled that it didn’t provide us with apodictic certainty, and therefore he was a man of little faith…. In short, his definition of what constitutes true knowledge is unrealistic and even Platonic.

[@moonball00n]

your videos are nice man they help me in class

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Great, glad we could help.

[@taylorroarkpayton]

So essentially, we have absolutes such as mathematics, and we have high degrees of certainty when it comes to things like the sun rising. The scientific method uses what evidence we have not to prove something true, but rather to falsify it. If a theory can withstand all attempts to falsify it and contradicted, it is considered true to the highest degree of certain that we can obtain. However, if new evidence arises in the future to falsify or dispute, what we know , we can and should overrule our old beliefs of certainty. Only factual information has practical application. I understand we assume the laws of physics and everything we know has a minute possibility of being different tomorrow; however, to live life as if that is the case has no helpful or meaningful relevance.

[@willchen5470]

Please please please make more videos in relation to the A level course for philosophy, find these videos great for revision

[@PhilosophyVibe]

So happy these videos are helping. We have a lot more in the pipeline set to be released. Is there any topics in specific you would like to see covered?

[@goziennaanamelechi3108]

More on analytic philosophy pls

[@rowkadelight1949]

Please put it with a subtitle

[@SsingAhh]

Thanks so much. I watched a lot of videos on this and this explains really well. Thank you!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad it was helpful. Thank you for watching.

[@alvinlai3988]

I love this channel so much

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@farshidmon3777]

There is also disagreement in the very foundation of causality. Ghazalli, argued that simply because when you put a cotton in fire, and it burns does not necessarily means that there is causality but mere cooccurence. His theory known as occationalism. This misunderstanding has been the cause of a lot of supersticions. For example seeing a black cat and connecting it to a misfortune you had. Ghazzali continues that some cooccurances can be demonstrated that they repeat everytime we repeat the experiment. He called them the traditions, and while traditions tend to repeat they are not certain. He used this argument to explaim the happening of miracles. I.e. things which can not be explained. He then, like Hymme but based on his theistic approach, said that this is no concern for the ordinary people, as in the daily life things continue to happen as they used to, since God is kind he will continue "the tradions", because ultimately the God is the cause of everything and he wont make us confused (basically similar to what Decarte argued few centuries later). In other word he attacks the aristotellian causality (four causes). As a rule of thumb if I go to a newly discovered island and see a huge structure of sculpture, i would quickly conclude that there were/are humans here, as it is unimaginable that the finely built structures just appear out of no where. Similar to Bertrand Russel's 5 minutes hypothesis. So basically his arguments were only for the purpose of the academia.

[@stevenmackintosh8160]

Nice vid, but inductive reasoning does not even lead us to know what is probable, as is stated many times in the video. We cannot know it is probable B follows A even after a million observations. The next billion observations C may follow A.

[@manpreetdhillon7260]

Very well explained! Thanks so much!!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome, thanks for watching.

[@ThePinkHatter]

Well done!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thanks :)

[@marionforge2769]

I learned a lot. It's simple but very informative.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Glad this helped, thank you for watching.

[@coolstuff7772]

Love you guys

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!!!!

[@goziennaanamelechi3108]

Any videos on analytic philosophy pls?

[@khemchandpatel6098]

Finally... thank you very much

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome!

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

Very entertaining thanks for that.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Pleasure, thanks for watching.

[@ButterHaus420]

Thanks, great video

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome!

[@The_mythical_shadysnake7668]

Am I a skeptic then since I doubt everything and everyday what ever I do . I never planned anything for future but if I do I still doubt that will happen until it happens I believe it's true . Also everyday I imagine that if I sleep today i might not get up tomorrow .so. ..

[@atharali1027]

Wonderful man

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@rajukb641]

Thank you sir for your video

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome.

[@Elizabethlc26]

you guys deserve tips. set up a venmo

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you. Was thinking this too. I think we may wait till our audience grows a bit.

[@Cyb3riano]

Beautiful video. Thanks guys,! I have an exam about this in a few days. Wish me luck. The guy on the left slightly reminded me of Beavis and Butthead. 😉 Regards from Argentina.

[@PhilosophyVibe]

You're welcome. Best of luck in the exam!

[@RekzaFS]

Why is Hume considered an empiricist if he thinks we can't derive knowledge from experience? I think I might have misunderstood something here, but the way things were explained really made it seem to me like Hume was a rationalist rather than an empiricist.

[@lassemadsen4872]

Hume is a radical empiricist. He thinks that the only thing you can know for certain is what you experince in the moment. All you can know is what your senses tells you here and now. This is what makes him radical, since you can't rely on anything, which your senses have precvious told you, only what they tell you right now. This means that you can't say anything beyond your senses. This include saying anything about the world. You can't conclude anything from what you've experienced in the past, since it is possible that you'll in the future experience a change in nature. I hope this makes sense. English isn't my primary language.

[@9Ballr]

"So this is the problem of induction. With inductive reasoning you can never reach certain knowledge, just probable conclusions based on previous experiences." This was not Hume's point. Hume's claim is not that inductive reasoning does not yield knowledge because its conclusions are only probable, but rather that we have no reason whatsoever to believe the conclusions of inductive arguments. His argument, briefly, was that all inductive arguments rely on the claim that nature will remain uniform in the future (that like causes will continue to produce like effects in the future, like we have observed in the past), but that there is no way to rationally establish that this claim (which has come to be called the principle of the uniformity of nature) is true. When we use inductive reasoning the best we can do is assume that the principle is true, without justification, which means that there are no rational grounds for believing the conclusions we form based on inductive reasoning at all, not even to any degree of probability.

[@juliasiemiatkowska2835]

I love your content so much! What are the names of the 2 characters?

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you very much. Beard is George, and purple jacket is John.

[@kya169]

I'm definitely a skeptic, but then again I'm also a bit chaotic 😂

[@viswanathanmuthu2066]

There is proverb in Tamil language what u learnt is in the size of sand grains which u can hold in ur hand , and what u haven't learnt is in the size of the universe

[@mariamehru179]

great video

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you

[@adcaptandumvulgus4252]

Where's Curly...?

[@123shainz]

fabulous .....

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Thank you!

[@G.Bfit.93]

The idea that skepticism holds no real world utility is bunk. Without skepticism we are slaves to faith, dogma, stagnation. It is through skepticism that science and philosophy and political economy advances. The objection literally amounts to, "but I WANNA KNOW that I'm right I WANNA I WANNA I WANNA."

[@neutral235]

skeptic is never a skeptic when he is thinking about drinking poisen

[@fredroberts8275]

Hume seemed to say the exact opposite when it comes to miracle claims by the way. Where he rightfully in my views argues against miracles on the basis of experience.

[@yeziu3475]

You’re example of induction is not induction at all, if all living animals need water to survive. We find a new living organism, that’s a living organism therefore it needs water to survive. That’s a deductive example if we grant the first premise of the syllogism.

[@alecmisra4964]

No, "all living animals need water to survive" is an hypothesis not a premise.

[@yeziu3475]

Endymion it is a hypothetical “assume all living organism need water to survive” this is a new living organism therefore it needs water to survive its not inductive it’s deductive you want an inductive argument it should be like this Most living organism needs water to survive This is a living organism Therefore it needs water to survive (If you put “likely, most, probably” in the conclusion it’s deductive if you don’t it’s inductive)

[@erinwolf1563]

@@yeziu3475 yes you are right...All is used for deduction not induction....

[@whatthirteen1]

It has become a gripe of mine that comments are made about the sun rising when that is Not what happens. The analogy works as what we think happens is not what happens. hummm

[@candymandan]

Though the production quality is raising my skepticism (hehe) I can't deny how helpful and easy to follow this was. Thank you very much!

[@PhilosophyVibe]

Pleasure, glad you found it useful.

[@benbell9170]

It might be fairer to Hume if you also talked about the problem with deduction. Practically, we couldn't generate new knowledge through deduction. We barely say something new. Everything has been already said in the premises and we just summarize them into the result. example: 1. human is mortal. 2. Socrates is human. ---- :. Socrates is mortal. If you look carefully, we didn't say anything new with the result of the deduction here, we just point it out from the 2 premises we had. The knowledge we have today, namely the scientific discoveries, is the result of the (empiric) induction, and yes, it's not 100% certainty. What Hume says to my understanding is that claiming the "absolute" truth/knowledge is dogmatic and we should always take our assumption with a grain of salt!!! Because you never know what new empirical evidence you might get next time.

[@BradleyGearhart]

Don’t play Hume with me

[@marcuscoquer5958]

I expect things to happen as they normally do, but I am not surprised when they do not. One day the sun will not rise. One day gravity will not be there. I have no idea when. But a sun will rise, and gravity will still exist, just maybe not here.

[@frankojudoka]

Believe in god(s) is inductive reasoning. 5:26 someone glued the 8 ball to the table. So assuming nobody glued the to the table, your previous assumption will come true.

[@sisyphushappy5200]

You're just one person playing both characters. Aren't you?

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

Still and all Hume got to predicting when he said he would outlive Christianity. He died in 1776 and since then Christianity has made great strides in Asia and in the west it is chiefly responsible for the dissolution and abatement of slavery.

[@rvahini1183]

6:09

[@food2199]

my head hurts... lol

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Highly probable

[@zeroonetime]

Everything it is what I.T. I.S. Information System.

[@Pizaerable]

How is the sun rising an inductive reasoning? We don’t use experience to tell, we use the understanding of gravity and earth rotating, whilst we know that it’s impossible for the laws of nature to change to prevent the sun rising.

[@Pizaerable]

Well that depends on how we define experience. We tend to use the word experience to describe things subjectively. We experience pain, but we can't classify pain because its subjective as its defined by different people having their own 'experience'. When it comes to the sun rising, we use observation. Observation by default is the ultimate truth of the physical world we understand. We don't need experience to justify if the sun will rise, even if human never existed, the sun will rise because of the laws of nature that we understand by observation. If you are going to argue and say "but observation is based on experience, how sure are we that our observation will lead to the ultimate truth of the physical world or laws of nature?", then your committing a fallacy. If that argument was true, then your arguing that the sensory receptors and our neurological function could essentially be mislead and wrong due to the fact that we can't objectively prove that the sun will not rise tomorrow as its based on observation or experience from what we can detect with our sensory information. Evolution requires organisms with precise sensory mechanisms to exist, hence we can argue that according to our observation via our sensory information, the physical world and the laws of nature we understand of is the ultimate truth and not subjected to any change had there been no reason for it to change anyway. So everything in science and physics we learn shouldn't be suspected to change unless sufficient evidence is provided, but more evidence can change the theory to provide more explanation of the observation, rather than the observation itself. So again, the sun rising isn't a good analogy to explain that we use inductive reasoning due to experience in order to realise that tomorrow the sun will rise again.

[@Renz123546515]

I'm sorry, but you are "begging the question". It doesn't matter if you call it experience or observation. (1) If our inductive expectations were justified then they would depend on a justified belief in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature (PUN). - (PUN) The future will resemble the past (2) It is not contradictory that the course of nature may change. So, (3) there is no a priori argument for the justification of (PUN) (4) All arguments are either a priori or inductive. (5) Any argument for the justification of the (PUN) must be inductive (from premises (3) and (4)) (6) Any argument for the justification of the (PUN) would presuppose the proposition it seems to establish (from (1) and (5)). The only solution would be if we could "see" the causation which causes an effect. So, that for example, we could "see" the element of "risiness", something that entails the sun and without this element the sun would not be the sun. However it's totally pragmatic to use induction, we have no choice.

[@DinoDillinger]

@@Renz123546515, (2) is wrong. Nature can't change. The only logical theory of nature changing involves a change in a variable. Which is not a result of nature not being uniform but of our limited knowledge of the variables. A priori judgements are a part of nature. They are found in the mind, the mind can't be separated from any other physical element of being. Good day.

[@liam_iam]

@@DinoDillinger Your claim "nature can't change" comes from experience though. It's perfectly conceivable that the laws of nature could just spontaneously change out of nowhere. It's nonsensical, but conceivable nonetheless, which is why we can't make any claims to knowledge.

[@DinoDillinger]

@@liam_iam I would say if your reasoning for doubting knowledge is nonsensical then your skepticism is nonsensical.

[@jameskamau951]

I also believe that deduction too has fallacy in establishing a conclusion. For instance, when you say that A bachelor is an unmarried man, we bound ourselves to understanding that the truth is universally accepted, which is not. Most of these definitions are western formulated so do not consider philosophers from other world of view. We need to investigate more on the predicate than on the subject. Here the question of marrying is a bit controversial considering that we come from different cultural backgrounds. For instance, in my environment a man can sire children and still be called a bachelor, an unmarried man. In this respect, definition of terms ought not to be bound by certain thinkers' perception but by rational understanding of each individual.

[@aaronsaunders6974]

as long as the world has orbit, the sun will rise ☀️

[@marcuscoquer5958]

One day the sun will not rise.

[@trentp151]

It seems that there is absolutely no practical use of Hume's Theory of Knowledge. How could there be? He said it himself, there is no truth. I think he has made this world a far more difficult place to live in, with people plagued by self-doubt and ignorance, since if nothing can be seen as being true, why study anything? Self-defeating philosophy right there.

[@ProjektKlover]

Why do you put skepticism to the side because it "we have to live our lives"? You're unintentionally using pragmatism, why? If we want to reach the truth, then maybe the truth means that we should not live our lives.

[@LilGanjam]

Sun stopped rising. A horror story

[@behnamashjari3003]

The problem with Hume is that he didn't know probability and Fuzzy Logic. Nothing is certain but everything has a probability of being true. Sun rising tomorrow is not 100% true but it is 99.9% true based on empiricism. The world is probabilistic and everything is accidental and random to some extent. Even evolutionary mutations are random and accidental.

[@brr5544]

Hume never formally studied sufficient and necessary nor BIconditional statements. He explored and embraced common elementary school educated people of common feelings and emotions. Hahahahahahah.

[@owlnyc666]

I would bet your life and the lives of those you love that the sun will rise tommm

[@owlnyc666]

That the sun will appear to rise tomorrow. The quest for ABSOLUTE certainty,ABSOLUTE knowledge is as futile as the quest for a UTOPIA. A perfect world. 😉😀

[@MColly-ko6mx]

purple dude so depressy vibes < 3

[@brr5544]

Hume is kinda embarrassing. I guess the laws of thermodynamics was magic Jesus walking on water to Hume

[@Rugira600]

this is rediculous

[@Emma-ns4zc]

Done.