Subject:

Comments:
: : How does hume argue that there can be no argument that shows : : that the future will resemble the past? : He, in fact, does say that there is an argument which does show : that the future resembles the past. Supposedly, it : is called the "Uniformity of Nature" (UN) principle. : Hume shows, however, that when you plug this into : an inductive argument, it becomes deductive and, : as a result, circular. : e.g. : p1 In my experiene, the sun has always risen in the morning. : p2 UN Past futures have resembled past pasts, so : future futures will resemble future pasts. : C The sun will rise tomorrow. : It is clear that basing this on experience eventually : runs into circularity, and he says this at one point : in his Enquiry. Since this is the only way he : could see induction to be justified, he figures : there is no other way, and therefore there is no argument : which justifies the future resembling the past. : I think that might answer your question. My : question is, how can he get around the fact that : he tries to make induction follow deduction's : rules? Or, rather, how can he get around trying : to fit a square peg into a round hole?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[Nantuckets.com][BusinessPhilosophy.com][Classicals.com] [Nantucket Poetry Postcards]
[Nantucket Navy Live Chat][The Jolly Roger][Kill Devil Hill][Western Canon University][Federalistnavy.com Spirit of America]
[Starbuck.com Classical Poetry Port] [Kill Devil Hill] [Shakespearean Greetings]
[Conservative Cafe][nantucketnavy.com][hatteraslight.com]
DavidHumehall Re: past and future: Nantucket Campfire

DavidHumehall Nantucket Campfire
DavidHumehall & Other Nantucket Live Chats
If ye would like to moderate the DavidHumehall Nantucket Campfire, please drop nantucket@nantuckets.com a line.