Dear Ron,
I do not want to take sides in your debate with Kathryn Laskey; I have not
followed the details of that debate. But I do have several questions about one
of your statements. Please see below.
Peter Tillers
"Ronald E. Parr" wrote:
> >I formalize this argument as a model P(H)P(E|H), perform deductive
> >inference to compute P(H|E), and then apply the result back to the
> >world. I claim that my result P(H|E) models my belief about H, updated
> >by the evidence E. That step, applying my model to make a claim about
> >the world (or at least what I believe about the world), is not
> >deduction. I never said it was. I can't prove to anyone, including
> >myself, that this belief is "right."
>
> The step to which you refer is induction. H is the hypothesis that the
> world is such that it makes sense to use induction. You are using
> induction to justify induction, which is circular.
Ron,
1. Do you think induction _needs_ a "justification"? If a justification is not
supplied, should we say that induction is illegitimate? Or should we begin by
assuming that induction sometimes works and that we should continue to believe
that it works (sometimes) unless someone shows that it does not work or cannot
work? Is it your position that induction is impossible?
2. Does deduction need a justification? If so, would a deductive justification
of deduction be circular? Would only a non-deductive justification (e.g., an
inductive justification?) of deduction be non-circular? Should we assume that
deduction is invalid unless someone can demonstrate the contrary?
Best regards,
Peter Tillers
begin:vcard
n:Tillers;Peter
tel;fax:(212) 790-0205
tel;work:(212) 790-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.tiac.net/users/tillers/
org:Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University
adr:;;55 Fifth Avenue;New York;New York;10003;USA
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Professor of Law
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:Peter Tillers
end:vcard
