Class Notes (903,575)
CA (538,023)
UTSC (32,632)
Philosophy (967)
PHLA10H3 (177)
Lecture

Week 10 notes

3 Pages
129 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHLA10H3
Professor
William Seager

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Philosophy Week 10 Notes
Is PUN a priori?
-can we give a deductive proof of PUN?
-Is it possible that nature should not be uniform
-It seems possible, therefore, PUN sis not a priori
Therefore, PUN is a Posteriori
-so it must be proven either by observation or induction
-we cannot observe PUN because it is about the future
-so we must give an inductive argument for PUN
Therefore, the argument will contain an assumption
-the assumption – according to HUME – will be PUN
-although this is circular reasoning and cannot show PUN
Ex. Argument:
-in the past, PUN has always been true
-therefore, inductively, PUN is true
Hume notes that this argument depends on the assumption that nature will continue to obey PUN
The argument ought to be:
-in the past, PUN has always been true
-PUN
-Therefore, PUN is true
This argument fails because it blatantly assumes what it wants to prove
Hume’s attitude towards induction
-Hume thought we should reason inductively even though we have no rational reason to do so
-He thought we (and many other animals) are naturally structured to believe in and use induction
-Ex. Pavlov’s dogs
-Hume sometimes called this “habit
-He also noticed instincts – which arebuilt in” by nature and carry information about how organisms
“expect the world to work
-Hume wondered how instincts arose and came somewhat close to a concept of evolution
-But rationality cannot support the beliefs and expressed in instinct or by the habit of inductive inference
But is PUN needed for inductive arguments or the attack on induction?
What exactly is the content of PUN?
Is nature alwaysuniform”?
-do the seasons of the year show uniformity or diversity?
-Is the death of animals a feature of natural uniformity or a sudden dis-uniformity in an animals life
-It seems impossible to state PUN in any non-trivial way
-But PUN is not needed to create the problem of induction
Induction and reliability
-we want our inductive knowledge to be secure
-lets say that a Reliable method of inference is one that usually leads to the truth
o‘usually’ can be thought of as a scale, from the not very reliable to the highly reliable
o– ex. Prediction of solar eclipse – highly reliable
This scale can be expressed in terms of probability
-the probability of an eclipse given what we know about sun, earth and moon is virtually 1
-the probability of rain next week given our current knowledge is slightly more than 0.5
Sober’s version of the problem of induction
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Philosophy Week 10 Notes Is PUN a priori? - can we give a deductive proof of PUN? - Is it possible that nature should not be uniform - It seems possible, therefore, PUN sis not a priori Therefore, PUN is a Posteriori - so it must be proven either by observation or induction - we cannot observe PUN because it is about the future - so we must give an inductive argument for PUN Therefore, the argument will contain an assumption - the assumption according to HUME will be PUN - although this is circular reasoning and cannot show PUN Ex. Argument: - in the past, PUN has always been true - therefore, inductively, PUN is true Hume notes that this argument depends on the assumption that nature will continue to obey PUN The argument ought to be: - in the past, PUN has always been true - PUN - Therefore, PUN is true This argument fails because it blatantly assumes what it wants to prove Humes attitude towards induction - Hume thought we should reason inductively even though we have no rational reason to do so - He thought we (and many other animals) are naturally structured to believe in and use induction - Ex. Pavlovs dogs - Hume sometimes called this habit - He also noticed instincts which are built in by nature and carry info
More Less
Unlock Document


Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit