Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Oh, and shoulder the burden of proof, please. You just made a claim: inferences/inductions are only valuable (whatever that means) if they're testable by experiments to verify its claims. Can you prove that using absolutely no philosophical premises? I'll wait for the syllogism. [edit: even the claim itself isn't a scientific claim - it's a philosophical claim about the value-status of inferences/inductions. If it's a scientific claim, how would you even test it without begging the question? How do you test by experiment that the most valuable inferences/inductions are the ones that are testable by experiment without already adopting a methodology that tests inferences/inductions by experiments? You have to step outside the methodology to evaluate its merits on extra-scientific, philosophical grounds, the very grounds you're invalidating from the outset!]
And the transcendentally deduced form of argumentation that originated with Kant, although popular with apologists like you, has been discredited and replaced by the scientific methodology which arose consequent to the Enlightenment.
Comment