Simple rules for dating my son

On a philosophical level, the argument relies on the presupposition that the operation of future events will mirror the past.

In other words, it takes for granted a uniformity of nature, an unproven principle that cannot be derived from the empirical data itself.

Arguments that tacitly presuppose this uniformity are sometimes called Humean after the philosopher who was first to subject them to philosophical scrutiny.

Even though one cannot be sure Bob will attend university, we can be fully assured of the exact probability for this outcome (given no further information).

The conclusion might be true, and might be thought probably true, yet it can be false.

For the preceding argument, the conclusion is tempting but makes a prediction well in excess of the evidence.

First, it assumes that life forms observed until now can tell us how future cases will be: an appeal to uniformity.

Second, the concluding All is a very bold assertion. And last, to quantify the level of probability in any mathematical form is problematic.

A generalization (more accurately, an inductive generalization) proceeds from a premise about a sample to a conclusion about the population.

There are 20 balls—either black or white—in an urn.

Search for simple rules for dating my son:

simple rules for dating my son-24simple rules for dating my son-40

This form of induction was explored in detail by philosopher John Stuart Mill in his System of Logic, wherein he states: Analogical induction is a subcategory of inductive generalization because it assumes a pre-established uniformity governing events.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “simple rules for dating my son”