#davidhume — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #davidhume, aggregated by home.social.
-
A wise man... proportions his belief to the evidence.
-- David Hume⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #DavidHume #Evidence
⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BartolomeIsland #PinnacleRock #Galapagos
-
“Stercus accidit”*…
The Wealth of the Nation (1942) by Seymour Fogel. Fine Arts Collection, United States General Services AdministrationAs we try to understand the rifts afflicting our nation and world, many turn to Marx and his framework of class. But in a provocative essay, Catherine Nichols suggests that it was David Hume (in an 1752 essay that identified the unfethering of wealth from land) who identified the origin of our political divisions…
Describing the political map in terms of Left and Right is an accepted convention all over the world, almost to the point of cliché. Yet it is surprisingly complicated to explain whose interests lie on each side of this spectrum. For example, if the Left supports the interests of workers over the interests of employers, why are Left-leaning regions of the United States and elsewhere in the world among the richest? When Japan and South Korea sought to become economic powerhouses in the later 20th century, they adopted Leftist policies such as strong public education, universal healthcare and increased gender equality – if countries seeking to compete in capitalist arenas adopt broadly Leftist policies, then how do we explain why Leftists are always talking about overthrowing capitalism? And if the Left is somehow both the party of workers’ rights and the party of material wealth, then whose interests are supported by the Right? Given such contradictions, how did these terms become so central to modern politics?
The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ come from the seating arrangements in the National Assembly during the French Revolution, where the combatants used the medieval estate groupings to define their battle lines. According to their writings, land-owning aristocrats (the Second Estate) were the party of the Right, while the interests of nearly everyone else (the Third Estate) belonged to the Left. This Third Estate included peasants working for the landowners but also every other kind of business owner and worker. Decades later, Karl Marx offered a different analysis of capitalism: he put owners of both land and businesses together on one side (the bourgeoisie), while grouping workers from fields and factories on the other side (the proletariat) in a single, world-wide class struggle. The trouble with both these ways of parsing Left and Right is that voting patterns never seem to line up with class. Both historic analyses leave us with questions about the contemporary world – and not just the paradox of why so many Left-leaning places are so rich. Why, for example, do working-class conservatives appear to vote against their material interests, year in and year out, across generations?
The 18th-century philosopher and political theorist David Hume had answers to these questions, though he was writing decades before the French Revolution. While his essay ‘Of Public Credit’ (1752) was a warning about the dangers of Britain’s increasing reliance on debt financing, his apocalyptic vision of the future turned out to describe some features of our current political map surprisingly well. Hume was writing because he believed that debt financing had the power to upend Europe’s traditional power structure and culture by creating a new source of money divorced from tradition or responsibility: stocks and bonds. Unlike land, anyone with some cash could buy war bonds and get an immediate passive income in the form of interest. This was the thin end of the wedge caused by the debt financing that Hume believed was destroying every part of society. The governments of antiquity, Hume argued, saved money to use in battle and then waged wars in self-defence, or else to expand their territory. But the British had invented a new form of warfare that Hume saw no precedent for, even in the merchant states of Nicollò Machiavelli’s Italy: war for trade, funded with money borrowed from private stockholders…
[Nichols unpacks Hume’s observations (centrally, that three groups with stakes in the status quo, heretability, and the sanctity of “family and family hierarchy”tradition”– landowners, aging parents, and want to preserve old power structures, including the family– and traces their relevance, from Hume’s time to ours…]
… There are many reasons for people aligning Right or Left, which is why analyses of class and material interests fall short of describing the realities of people’s politics. Hume foresaw that these specific groups would resent the economic sea-change of the 18th century – and he was correct. Many people would rather have land and power than money and liberty.
Still, the power of the Right hasn’t doomed the Left – no more than the Spanish Inquisition doomed the rise of the Left in 18th-century England and France. As long as governments want to keep the value of their currencies from falling, someone in their ranks will be using the methods of the Left and inventiveness that brought us everything from our banking system to gay marriage. We don’t need to resurrect communism or focus narrowly on class, following Marx. The experiments are far from over, and we should remember that the Left is generally where money comes from in modern times. We give away too much power when we forget it…
Rethinking Right and Left: “Landholder vs stockholder,” from @catherinenichols.bsky.social in @aeon.co.
As for how it’s going at the moment (and further to Hume and the quote in this post’s title), see: “MAGA’s Betrayal of Small Business,” from @pkrugman.bsky.social.
* “shit happens”– often attributed to David Hume, reflecting his skeptical view that human understanding, particularly of cause-and-effect, is limited to habitual belief from experience, implying that unforeseen, messy outcomes (“shit”) inevitably occur in life despite our reasoning.
###
As we sort the Whigs from the Tories, we might recall that it was on this date 1656 that Blaise Pascal (writing under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte) published the first of his Provential Letters (Lettres provinciales), a series of eighteen polemical letters using humor to attack Jesuits for their use of casuistry and their moral laxity. Though the Letters were a popular success, they had little immediate effect on politics or the clergy. But they influenced later French writers like Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and ultimately persuaded Pope Alexander to condemn “laxity” in the church and order a revision of casuistic texts.
#BlaisePascal #culture #DavidHume #economics #history #JeanJacquesRousseau #Jesuits #KarlMarx #philosophy #politicalDivision #politics #ProventialLetters #religion #society #sociology #Voltaire -
“Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.” #DavidHume #ImplicitSubmission #Resist #SunriseOnTheReaping
-
Rationality has no motivation, this isn't a fringe position its formulated more thoroughly by philosophers like David Hume I wont keep replying but don't presume to be in the right just because you dont understand a philosophical position
-
Rationality has no motivation, this isn't a fringe position its formulated more thoroughly by philosophers like David Hume I wont keep replying but don't presume to be in the right just because you dont understand a philosophical position
-
Rationality has no motivation, this isn't a fringe position its formulated more thoroughly by philosophers like David Hume I wont keep replying but don't presume to be in the right just because you dont understand a philosophical position
-
David Hume and the Logical Case Against Miracles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00LMthL3wJU
In this video, we explore the powerful and timeless argument known as David Hume's Problem of Miracles.
#DavidHume #MiraclesDebunked #Philosophy #Atheism #Skepticism #LogicOverFaith #EnlightenmentThinkers #CriticalThinking #ReligiousSkepticism #HumeOnMiracles #PhilosophyOfReligion #RationalThinking #AtheistContent #MiracleClaims #EvidenceBasedThinking
-
#PeterAtkins - #Arguments Against #God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYnhEIKYeg
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Theism #Theology #Atheism #Evidence #Cosmology #Miracle #Miracles #Hume #DavidHume #Creation #Universe #Morality #Evolution #Culture #Good #Evil #Science #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #FineTuning #Constants #ConstantsOfNature #Multiverse #ManyUniverses #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#PeterAtkins - #Arguments Against #God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYnhEIKYeg
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Theism #Theology #Atheism #Evidence #Cosmology #Miracle #Miracles #Hume #DavidHume #Creation #Universe #Morality #Evolution #Culture #Good #Evil #Science #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #FineTuning #Constants #ConstantsOfNature #Multiverse #ManyUniverses #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#PeterAtkins - #Arguments Against #God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYnhEIKYeg
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Theism #Theology #Atheism #Evidence #Cosmology #Miracle #Miracles #Hume #DavidHume #Creation #Universe #Morality #Evolution #Culture #Good #Evil #Science #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #FineTuning #Constants #ConstantsOfNature #Multiverse #ManyUniverses #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#PeterAtkins - #Arguments Against #God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYnhEIKYeg
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Theism #Theology #Atheism #Evidence #Cosmology #Miracle #Miracles #Hume #DavidHume #Creation #Universe #Morality #Evolution #Culture #Good #Evil #Science #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #FineTuning #Constants #ConstantsOfNature #Multiverse #ManyUniverses #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#PeterAtkins - #Arguments Against #God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYnhEIKYeg
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Theism #Theology #Atheism #Evidence #Cosmology #Miracle #Miracles #Hume #DavidHume #Creation #Universe #Morality #Evolution #Culture #Good #Evil #Science #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #FineTuning #Constants #ConstantsOfNature #Multiverse #ManyUniverses #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#MichaelShermer - What’s the #NewAtheism?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLDywmDlfbE
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfReligion #Religion #Atheist #Atheism #Theist #Theism #Theology #God #Gods #Hume #DavidHume #Agnostic #Agnosticism #Science #FineTuning #Universe #Sceptic #Skeptic #Sceptics #Skeptics #Scepticism #Skepticism #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
🏴 "Hume saw Protestant theology—especially the more enthusiastic strains of English Puritanism—as having fortuitously shifted the landscape of political and economic sensibilities in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by affecting believers’ political, social, and economic psychologies."
Matson EW. HUME ON THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE RISE OF ENGLISH COMMERCIAL SPIRIT. Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Published online 2024:1-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837223000585 #OpenAccess #OA #Journal #Article #Study #DOI #History #Economics #HistoryOfEconomics #Philosophy #DavidHume #England #Europe #Protestantism #EarlyModern #Academia #Academic #Academics @philosophy @historyofeconomics @earlymodern
-
#SystemsInnovation - #Causality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_ykeBfd5ds&ab_channel=SystemsInnovation
#Philosophy #Science #Systems #SystemsThinking #CauseAndEffect #Cause #Effect #Physics #Induction #Hume #DavidHume #ConstantConjunction #LinearCausality #NonLinearCausality #Feedback #Holism #HolisticSynthetic #TopDown #BottomUp #Emergence #Emergentism #Reduction #Reductivism
-
Hey, #atheists and other #secular types! Take the next step and question the provincial religious #morality you’re still rationalizing!
https://newideal.aynrand.org/religious-skeptics-should-question-their-moral-theology/
#philosophy #ethics #morals #values #reason #atheism #Aristotle #AynRand #PhilippaFoot #MichaelThompson #StevenPinker #Pinker #SamHarris #Harris #MichaelShermer #Shermer #Kant #Sidgwick #Rawls #Parfit #DavidHume #Hume #ACGrayling #Grayling #TrolleyProblem
-
#GeorgeEllis - What is #Causation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKPz304y4i0&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Science #Physics #Philosophy #PhilosophyOfScience #PhilosophyOfPhysics #Hume #DavidHume #TopDown #TopDownCausation #BottomUp #BottomUpCausation #Emergence #Reduction #Evolution #Constraint #Adaptation #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#BarryLoewer - What is #Causation ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j04awLTzaqI&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Philosophy #PhilosophyOfScience #Hume #DavidHume #Physics #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #Regularities #PatternsOfRegularities #Statistics #StatisticalMechanics #Probability #Probabilities #Mentaculus #TheMentaculus #MentaculusVision #TheMentaculusVision #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
Should we believe in #FreeWill? - #RogerPenrose, #GalenStrawson, #BrianGreene, #DanielDennett...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHJZPuHVu2s&ab_channel=TheInstituteofArtandIdeas
#InstituteOfArtAndIdeas #TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas #IAI #Philosophy #Consciousness #Mind #TheMind #Metaphysics #Phenomenology #Determinism #Compatibilism #CauseAndEffect #Hume #DavidHume #Freedom
-
#JohnSearle - How Do #Persons Maintain Their #Identity ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwipmspceOU&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Philosophy #PersonalIdentity #PersonalContinuity #BodilyContinuity #TheSelf #Self #Hume #DavidHume #Consciousness #Mind #TheMind #Personhood #Intentionality #IntentionalStates #Memory #Responsibility #MoralResponsibility #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#HuwPrice - What is #Causation ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Uh-WrnNNg&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Science #Physics #Philosophy #PhilosophyOfScience #PhilosophyOfPhysics #Einstein #AlbertEinstein #BlockUniverse #GeneralRelativity #GR #Hume #DavidHume #Time #NatureOfTime #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #Hierarchy #QuantumMechanics #Cosmology #Entropy #ArrowOfTime #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#SimonBlackburn - What is #Causation ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvD1B_kpaA&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Philosophy #Hume #DavidHume #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #Regularities #PatternsOfRegularities #Induction #InductiveExperience #BottomUpCausation #MentalCausation #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#SimonBlackburn - What is #Causation ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvD1B_kpaA&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Philosophy #Hume #DavidHume #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #Regularities #PatternsOfRegularities #Induction #InductiveExperience #BottomUpCausation #MentalCausation #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
#SimonBlackburn - What is #Causation ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvD1B_kpaA&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
#Philosophy #Hume #DavidHume #LawsOfPhysics #LawsOfNature #Regularities #PatternsOfRegularities #Induction #InductiveExperience #BottomUpCausation #MentalCausation #Consciousness #CloserToTruth #RobertKuhn
-
Five Minutes on #Hume
Professor #SimonBlackburn gives five minutes on #Scottish #historian, #philosopher, #economist, #diplomat and #essayist #DavidHume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kdlQSLd6U&ab_channel=NewCollegeoftheHumanities
-
Five Minutes on #Hume
Professor #SimonBlackburn gives five minutes on #Scottish #historian, #philosopher, #economist, #diplomat and #essayist #DavidHume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kdlQSLd6U&ab_channel=NewCollegeoftheHumanities
-
Five Minutes on #Hume
Professor #SimonBlackburn gives five minutes on #Scottish #historian, #philosopher, #economist, #diplomat and #essayist #DavidHume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kdlQSLd6U&ab_channel=NewCollegeoftheHumanities
-
Five Minutes on #Hume
Professor #SimonBlackburn gives five minutes on #Scottish #historian, #philosopher, #economist, #diplomat and #essayist #DavidHume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kdlQSLd6U&ab_channel=NewCollegeoftheHumanities
-
Five Minutes on #Hume
Professor #SimonBlackburn gives five minutes on #Scottish #historian, #philosopher, #economist, #diplomat and #essayist #DavidHume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kdlQSLd6U&ab_channel=NewCollegeoftheHumanities
-
Les Passions de Hume – Envie et méchanceté: quand on se compare, on se sent mal.
https://journal.loupbrun.ca/n/113/
#envie #méchanceté #passions #DavidHume -
Looking at my stats I find that my recent introductory post about Bayesian probability has proved surprisingly popular with readers, so I thought I’d follow it up with a brief discussion of some of the philosophical issues surrounding it.
It is ironic that the pioneers of probability theory, principally Laplace, unquestionably adopted a Bayesian rather than frequentist interpretation for his probabilities. Frequentism arose during the nineteenth century and held sway until recently. I recall giving a conference talk about Bayesian reasoning only to be heckled by the audience with comments about “new-fangled, trendy Bayesian methods”. Nothing could have been less apt. Probability theory pre-dates the rise of sampling theory and all the frequentist-inspired techniques that modern-day statisticians like to employ.
Most disturbing of all is the influence that frequentist and other non-Bayesian views of probability have had upon the development of a philosophy of science, which I believe has a strong element of inverse reasoning or inductivism in it. The argument about whether there is a role for this type of thought in science goes back at least as far as Roger Bacon who lived in the 13th Century. Much later the brilliant Scottish empiricist philosopher and enlightenment figure David Hume argued strongly against induction. Most modern anti-inductivists can be traced back to this source. Pierre Duhem has argued that theory and experiment never meet face-to-face because in reality there are hosts of auxiliary assumptions involved in making this comparison. This is nowadays called the Quine-Duhem thesis.
Actually, for a Bayesian this doesn’t pose a logical difficulty at all. All one has to do is set up prior probability distributions for the required parameters, calculate their posterior probabilities and then integrate over those that aren’t related to measurements. This is just an expanded version of the idea of marginalization, explained here.
Rudolf Carnap, a logical positivist, attempted to construct a complete theory of inductive reasoning which bears some relationship to Bayesian thought, but he failed to apply Bayes’ theorem in the correct way. Carnap distinguished between two types or probabilities – logical and factual. Bayesians don’t – and I don’t – think this is necessary. The Bayesian definition seems to me to be quite coherent on its own.
Other philosophers of science reject the notion that inductive reasoning has any epistemological value at all. This anti-inductivist stance, often somewhat misleadingly called deductivist (irrationalist would be a better description) is evident in the thinking of three of the most influential philosophers of science of the last century: Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn and, most recently, Paul Feyerabend. Regardless of the ferocity of their arguments with each other, these have in common that at the core of their systems of thought likes the rejection of all forms of inductive reasoning. The line of thought that ended in this intellectual cul-de-sac began, as I stated above, with the work of the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume. For a thorough analysis of the anti-inductivists mentioned above and their obvious debt to Hume, see David Stove’s book Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. I will just make a few inflammatory remarks here.
Karl Popper really began the modern era of science philosophy with his Logik der Forschung, which was published in 1934. There isn’t really much about (Bayesian) probability theory in this book, which is strange for a work which claims to be about the logic of science. Popper also managed to, on the one hand, accept probability theory (in its frequentist form), but on the other, to reject induction. I find it therefore very hard to make sense of his work at all. It is also clear that, at least outside Britain, Popper is not really taken seriously by many people as a philosopher. Inside Britain it is very different and I’m not at all sure I understand why. Nevertheless, in my experience, most working physicists seem to subscribe to some version of Popper’s basic philosophy.
Among the things Popper has claimed is that all observations are “theory-laden” and that “sense-data, untheoretical items of observation, simply do not exist”. I don’t think it is possible to defend this view, unless one asserts that numbers do not exist. Data are numbers. They can be incorporated in the form of propositions about parameters in any theoretical framework we like. It is of course true that the possibility space is theory-laden. It is a space of theories, after all. Theory does suggest what kinds of experiment should be done and what data is likely to be useful. But data can be used to update probabilities of anything.
Popper has also insisted that science is deductive rather than inductive. Part of this claim is just a semantic confusion. It is necessary at some point to deduce what the measurable consequences of a theory might be before one does any experiments, but that doesn’t mean the whole process of science is deductive. He does, however, reject the basic application of inductive reasoning in updating probabilities in the light of measured data; he asserts that no theory ever becomes more probable when evidence is found in its favour. Every scientific theory begins infinitely improbable, and is doomed to remain so.
Now there is a grain of truth in this, or can be if the space of possibilities is infinite. Standard methods for assigning priors often spread the unit total probability over an infinite space, leading to a prior probability which is formally zero. This is the problem of improper priors. But this is not a killer blow to Bayesianism. Even if the prior is not strictly normalizable, the posterior probability can be. In any case, given sufficient relevant data the cycle of experiment-measurement-update of probability assignment usually soon leaves the prior far behind. Data usually count in the end.
The idea by which Popper is best known is the dogma of falsification. According to this doctrine, a hypothesis is only said to be scientific if it is capable of being proved false. In real science certain “falsehood” and certain “truth” are almost never achieved. Theories are simply more probable or less probable than the alternatives on the market. The idea that experimental scientists struggle through their entire life simply to prove theorists wrong is a very strange one, although I definitely know some experimentalists who chase theories like lions chase gazelles. To a Bayesian, the right criterion is not falsifiability but testability, the ability of the theory to be rendered more or less probable using further data. Nevertheless, scientific theories generally do have untestable components. Any theory has its interpretation, which is the untestable baggage that we need to supply to make it comprehensible to us. But whatever can be tested can be scientific.
Popper’s work on the philosophical ideas that ultimately led to falsificationism began in Vienna, but the approach subsequently gained enormous popularity in western Europe. The American Thomas Kuhn later took up the anti-inductivist baton in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn is undoubtedly a first-rate historian of science and this book contains many perceptive analyses of episodes in the development of physics. His view of scientific progress is cyclic. It begins with a mass of confused observations and controversial theories, moves into a quiescent phase when one theory has triumphed over the others, and lapses into chaos again when the further testing exposes anomalies in the favoured theory. Kuhn adopted the word paradigm to describe the model that rules during the middle stage,
The history of science is littered with examples of this process, which is why so many scientists find Kuhn’s account in good accord with their experience. But there is a problem when attempts are made to fuse this historical observation into a philosophy based on anti-inductivism. Kuhn claims that we “have to relinquish the notion that changes of paradigm carry scientists ..closer and closer to the truth.” Einstein’s theory of relativity provides a closer fit to a wider range of observations than Newtonian mechanics, but in Kuhn’s view this success counts for nothing.
Paul Feyerabend has extended this anti-inductivist streak to its logical (though irrational) extreme. His approach has been dubbed “epistemological anarchism”, and it is clear that he believed that all theories are equally wrong. He is on record as stating that normal science is a fairytale, and that equal time and resources should be spent on “astrology, acupuncture and witchcraft”. He also categorised science alongside “religion, prostitution, and so on”. His thesis is basically that science is just one of many possible internally consistent views of the world, and that the choice between which of these views to adopt can only be made on socio-political grounds.
Feyerabend’s views could only have flourished in a society deeply disillusioned with science. Of course, many bad things have been done in science’s name, and many social institutions are deeply flawed. One can’t expect anything operated by people to run perfectly. It’s also quite reasonable to argue on ethical grounds which bits of science should be funded and which should not. But the bottom line is that science does have a firm methodological basis which distinguishes it from pseudo-science, the occult and new age silliness. Science is distinguished from other belief-systems by its rigorous application of inductive reasoning and its willingness to subject itself to experimental test. Not all science is done properly, of course, and bad science is as bad as anything.
The Bayesian interpretation of probability leads to a philosophy of science which is essentially epistemological rather than ontological. Probabilities are not “out there” in external reality, but in our minds, representing our imperfect knowledge and understanding. Scientific theories are not absolute truths. Our knowledge of reality is never certain, but we are able to reason consistently about which of our theories provides the best available description of what is known at any given time. If that description fails when more data are gathered, we move on, introducing new elements or abandoning the theory for an alternative. This process could go on forever. There may never be a final theory. But although the game might have no end, at least we know the rules….
https://telescoper.blog/2010/12/11/deductivism-and-irrationalism/
#BayesianProbability #DavidHume #epistemology #induction #KarlPopper #ontology #PaulFeyerabend #philosophy #philosophyOfScience #RudolfCarnap #Science #ThomasKuhn