But why do you think explanations MUST come to an end?

No, I thought this was known for quite a while.

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We still have reason to believe the car will stop from pressing the brake pedal, obviously.

The fact that we could be wrong, doesn't mean that induction is useless.

At some point explanations must come to an end. Regularists place that stopping point at the way-the-world-is. Necessitarians place it one, inaccessible, step beyond, at the way-the-world-must-be.

Both theories offer the exact same amount of explanation. The only difference is that "necessity" adds something hidden and unobservable. That's why it's unappealing to those of us that rely on observation for knowledge of reality.

One sentence in the article puzzled me:

On both accounts - Necessitarianism and Regularity - what is physically impossible never, ever occurs - not in the past, not at present, not in the future, not here, and not anywhere else.

Why "not in the future"? This sounds like induction. If events are random, surely anything can happen in the future.

Exactly. It's useful. Is it true? It could be but I see no reason to think so. Hume has already shown us that any evidence we give for induction will merely beg the question. We use induction because it's conventional and unavoidable in everyday life.

No, I thought this was known for quite a while.

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------



Then I think you skipped this paragraph in the article:

At some point explanations must come to an end. Regularists place that stopping point at the way-the-world-is. Necessitarians place it one, inaccessible, step beyond, at the way-the-world-must-be.

Both theories offer the exact same amount of explanation. The only difference is that "necessity" adds something hidden and unobservable. That's why it's unappealing to those of us that rely on observation for knowledge of reality.

But we all believe things exist that are not accessible to direct observation.

Not knowing the answer does not mean there is no answer.

The previous occurrences are reason enough to believe the same occurrence will happen again.

You did. Explanations do not necessarily have to come to an end.

Why? What's your reasoning? Please don't leave anything out because I'm honestly trying to reconstruct how you arrived at your current position.

Which is a completely different sentence...

What I said was: I can always respond with "why" and either you give me yet another explanation ad infinitum or you stop it at some point.

Unless you're immortal, you will eventually have to stop asking why at some point. Don't you agree?

I'm using what's called "Inductive Reasoning".

Although affirming the consequent is an invalid inference, it is defended by some as a type of inductive reasoning, sometimes under the name "inference to the best explanation". That is, in some cases, reasoners argue that the antecedent is the best explanation, given the truth of the consequent. For example, someone considering the results of a scientific experiment may reason in the following way:

Theory P predicts that we will observe Q.
Experimental observation shows Q.
Therefore theory P is true.

However, such reasoning is still affirming the consequent and still logically weak. (e.g., Let P = geocentrism and Q = sunrise and sunset.) The strength of such reasoning as an inductive inference depends on the likelihood of alternative hypotheses, which shows that such reasoning is based on additional premises, not merely on affirming the consequent.

You've honestly never used induction, of any sort, in your daily life? I often use it to even function.

Resistance is futile.:detective:

It's funny that many of your arguments sound like those used by religious adherents.

No need to try to attack me, fellow. You know as well as I that inductive reasoning is useful (you even admitted it), and yet you seem to be enjoying playing devil's advocate.

Useful does not equal true. :brickwall:

"It's useful to believe X therefore X is true."

NO. WRONG.

Please direct me to the post I came to this conclusion at.

Thanks, brick.

Well, if that's not your conclusion then I apologize but what do you think you're accomplishing by saying that I think induction is useful?

So what? I think it's useful.

I can still argue that there's no reason to believe it's true, can't I?

What are you accomplishing by arguing it's not necessarily true?