|
PointedSphere (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Induction is a mode of inference, and I don't understand what you mean by "justified as long as you have a certain set of objects". How do we know deduction works? It has worked in the past, should work in the future too. How do we know induction works? You cannot rely on deduction here, because it supervenes upon induction's justification. And you cannot justify induction via induction, as that's question begging.Science, nor math, nor formal logic can help here - they are what's at stake.
sajlovesam (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
nothing mysterious here!
sajlovesam (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
both of arisen problems have answer in logical context. Interpretation refers to the proof theory in which you use some elementary rules for deduction. and induction is justified as long as you have a certain set of objects. for both to be meaningful, we must first choose the world, the objects of which are discussed and a collection of axioms!
PointedSphere (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Two philosophical problems (at least) arise: Scientists perform tests and gain results via their instruments.1) Data does not speak for itself; results must be interpreted. (What is the nature of interpretation?)What evidence does a scientist have to justify their interpretation? They could say, the world has mathematical/logical structure. But how do they justify that? Induction. 2) But how is induction justified? (Cf. Hume)Without answering these questions, science remains ungrounded.
UnivAnom (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Agreed but you also have to be careful about distinguishing the Early Wittgenstein(Tractatus) from the Later Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations) since they are essentially two different philosophers and Searle talks about both periods.
sajlovesam (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
you just said sth with anger (thats usual for philosophers though)! give a practical example of what you said(when scientists....). Im waiting great man!
boraxthedecapitator (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Are you kidding? You must be. Philosophy transcends math, science, politics, art, psychology, ethics, etc. For instance, when scientists make discoveries, they tend to be unable to interpret them correctly. That's because the interpretation of the implications of a certain discovery or what-have-you are up to philosophers. "I think we already have everything in math and science..." Ugh.
marpsja (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
Hi, Well, Russell is the father of analytic phylosophy, and there are many common ideas in his theories and just ligics. Wittgenstein has developed his idea of "describing world" with words. Or meanings, if you like:) Obviously, if you reject metaphysics from phylosophy you'll get get closer to logics. Though I don't think it's possible to be successfull. For me, personally, it's like the difference between two- and three-dimentional space.
sajlovesam (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
you know, I am professional in math and logic! the ideas of russel have been enlightening for me to be able to reject methaphysics but, I don't how any clue why people do philosophy these days???!!!! I think we already have every thing in math and Logic and just should discover them! maybe I am wrong but I can not see but logic in Wit and Russ's works. can any one kindda answer me! anyways, tnx for the upload, great work!
tinnycringe (December 31, 1969 at 4:59 pm)
ya man, I think it is. Searle is a very respected philosopher in academia. However, he surely doesn't have enough time to fully explain Wittgenstein's ideas. |
