Lucas, Dozen Swans, Tomorrow discussed on Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas


A relationship. I think this is the argument that change my mind from mike and from others. There is a relationship between how we talk. And how we think right Languages arbitrary we can invent whatever words we like we can invent whatever definitions. We want to four the words. But if the words we invent and the definitions we have four them. Don't map onto some feature of reality. Then they don't help us think. Having a definition of the word planet that can be extended beyond our solar system consistently so we can say what we call a planet and what we don't help us think about planets in careful precise way and we're entering an era now. We're discovering more and more planets around other stars so now is the time to get our house in order to figure out what we need mean by planet. There's really no good definition of planet if you just came up with one carefully by which pluto would count so now i'm on the side where pluto should not count as a planet anymore cracker. Lucas says. Can you explain why beijing reasoning is not just inductive ism with extra steps and if it is why do you believe it is important to be a good one. I think quite different actually. I mean beijing and reasoning can be thought of as what inductive ism should have been all along. I hope i'm interpreting the word inductive ism correctly. I know what induction is i. Presume that inductive ism means using induction to learn more about the world so there's mathematical induction or the induction which says if i know something is true for five a whole set of things thing thing to thing three thing for etc if i know if a certain property is true for things zero the first thing And i know that if something is true for thing and then it is true for thing and plus one. I can inductive -ly demonstrate. That thing is true for all of the things right. I go from the zero thing first second third etc that's mathematical logical induction zero problems with that that's just logically completely valid. There's also sort of a more imperial kind of induction. Which is you say. Oh i see swan and it is white. I see another swan and it's white. Oh look see dozen swans. They're all white. I therefore extrapolate out into the world and say swans are always white okay. That's a sort of more empirical kind of induction. But that's also nonsense as as david hume famously pointed out all we have to do tomorrow. See a black swan. We would change our mind. He wasn't using the swans..

Coming up next