Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 03:41:51 PM

and all human knowledge is inductive

It isn't, the point is that inductive reasoning is something of an illusion. Postpositivists say that induction is a wrong-headed way of looking at epistemology; it creates situations in which observations are assumed to be ampliative and thus justification for certain beliefs, when in fact beliefs are reached through a process of warranted conjectures which can be discarded when contrary evidence presents itself.

I guess I'm having difficulty distinguishing between what is meant by induction in epistemology, versus that of mathematical induction, which Gödel has demonstrated to show completeness and consistency (as in the proof works for all inputs of whatever function it's addressing).

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 03:16:42 PM

Though many logical proofs are most readily accomplished by contradiction (not synthetic), they're also accomplished using induction

Induction, however, is imperfect. Always is, and always will be. IIRC, Kant uses the example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an example of such a proposition, and yet I think it's unfair to categorise this as a truly a priori proposition. It may well be applicable in all circumstances we ever find, but in line with Hume I think it's really more of an incredibly strong conjecture, warranted by significant empirical evidence.

Although, having actually read GEB, you probably have a better grasp on the idea.

I think there's a strong argument for the entirety of our natural laws to be derived from induction; being able to be proved through analytic means just reinforces their certainty.

I think piranha wanted to talk about the problem of induction, and this seems like a good transition point.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 28, 2015, 02:23:33 PM

Synthetic propositions/matters of fact cannot be certain according to Hume.

They aren't and never will be, Hume was right on this.

Quote

As far as I'm aware, he never made an exception for first principles in his schema.

Which is where he was wrong. Whether it was a purposeful omission or he just didn't think of it, his own idea is pretty clearly a presupposition. Philosophy still hadn't figured this out by the 1940s apparently, because the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists all maintained ideas of Verificationism while also maintaining Hume's Guillotine.

Which is where the contradiction lies. If you maintain Hume's Guillotine, then Hume's Fork fails dramatically. If you reject Hume's Guillotine, it's quite clear that there is a role for presuppositions in any schema you develop, even if Hume himself never recognised it. And, it seems to me, you must reject Hume's Guillotine. There is a clear role for "oughts" in questions of what "is"; science itself is fundamentally based on Karl Popper's idea of falsificationism, which as you probably know is just a modern re-iteration of certain ideas like fallibilism and empiricism.

You have to pre-suppose things in order to get off the ground; science only ever works when you assume certain values like fallibilism and empiricism and physicalism. The point of epistemology is to make sure your pre-suppositions are actually worth holding.

Hume got one thing right and one thing wrong here, and I think you're essentially looking at the wrong side of the coin.

I'm really just stoking discussion, I think Hume was kind of insane with his radical empiricism, and even if the Fork isn't self-refuting I still think it's an overly stringent method of analysis. I think there's quite a bit wrong with claiming that observed data is inherently uncertain, though I think he's correct in clarifying that certainty comes from a priori knowledge.

Reference of who Hume is and some of his general ideas:



In addition, Hume developed a method of classifying concepts as either empirical or abstract, with various subcategories therein, essentially boiling down to a conclusion that certainty cannot exist through the scientific method, and only those statements which are tautological can be certain. There are many essays on this, and many interpretations of it (the best attempt to deconflict his statements was done by Kant, in my opinion), but ultimately this is what Hume has to say about science and philosophy:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

Ironically, Hume seems to have backed himself into a corner with this, since this statement isn't tautological, and at best it's merely sensory data he's interpreting. At worst, and most likely, it's little more than the same sophistry he urges us to commit to the flames. So it is self-refuting, and can be disregarded.

My hope with this thread is that you will go look up whatever you need to respond, but will refrain from specifically looking for rebuttals to this claim (though there really isn't a satisfactory one so far).

State of Decay was one of the best zombie games I've ever played. I'd like to see a larger world with more choices outside the obvious meta, but I might have to check out it's expansions.

The only reason it is more likely to occur in blacks is because blacks are more likely to draw their heritage to Africa than whites. If a white person could trace their ancestry back to Africa, which many can do with ease, they would no doubt also be more likely to develop sickle cell anemia.

A white man from Zimbabwe would likely be more prone to the development of said disease than, say, a black man from Haiti. Therefore it is not a trait of the race, but simply a trait that tends to effect more members of a certain race due to the likelihood of that race to trace its ethnic lineage to a certain area of the world.

Race could be described as the gradual genetic expression of ethnicity. Nobody is saying that all members of a race are going to have the same traits, and that's why it's important to also take into account family history and ethnicity. But the fact remains that race is still a medically relevant discriminator to assess likelihood of certain conditions precisely because of those trends you mentioned.

People seem to be assuming that just because a race has a larger probability of receiving some disease, that it is due to some level of "racial traits"rather than simply being...you know, a correlation.

Take sickle cell anemia for example. To say it's just a "black person disease" is wrong, because we know that race isn't specifically tied to skin color; a biracial person that physically appears to be one or the other (I.E., Barack Obama appears to be black despite being biracial) could very well be susceptible to certain medical or genetic conditions because of their genotype. Sickle cell anemia in Africans evolved as a way to combat Malaria, which is why black people are more prone to having it. So no, it's not at all just a mere correlation, it's an actual trait of the race, and it's relevant outside of the limited scope of society.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 27, 2015, 08:52:51 PM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on April 27, 2015, 08:50:21 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 27, 2015, 08:49:22 PM

Race is important for medical officials because different races have varying propensities for disorders and diseases. Race is certainly not just a social construct.

I'm not implying that it is just a social construct. I'm implying that the social "traits" to races is a social construct.

Like, "black people are more violent on average than white people"?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that definitely has more to do with economic classes than anything else.

Race is important for medical officials because different races have varying propensities for disorders and diseases. Race is certainly not just a social construct.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 26, 2015, 06:39:32 PM

Just release the goddamn poster. It's insane that now we have to unlock an advertisement.

"waaahhhh stop having a bit of fun with the marketing!"

This is fun?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 26, 2015, 08:59:39 PM

Dumb and enjoyable is still enjoyable. Fun characters, great action and effects, and there's something really brilliant about the cohesive cinematic universe they've established.

This is all wrong though

Oh you're right.

We went over it. I think that's godawful design.

I'm not so sure. First of all, he exists as a very poignant statement about the theme of the game, demonstrates how the death mechanic works, and also serves to tell a realistic story where cursed souls can't just idly wander out of the asylum and have to use their curse to continue to fight a struggle they certainly can't win without dying (numerous times if necessary). In addition, he also serves as an early reward for replaying the game since then you will be able to beat him, and you'll be well-rewarded for doing so.

Death is a core mechanic in the game, and the asylum shows that off very well.

This shit should put her on the sex offender list.

I always thought Captain America and Iron Man would have their roles reversed in a Civil War scenario. Cap is a patriotic good-ol'-boy and Stark is the regulation-hating free-market badass. Cap should've been pushing for the registration with Stark resisting it.

Look at those towers. Look how they're dressed, like dirty sluts. Those filthy whores were just asking to be DP'd by some sexually repressed Jihadis.