Transcript 100Salmon

SALMON
HUME
IN CONTEMPORARY TERMS
Wesley Salmon 1925 - 2001
Philosopher of science
 Metaphysician:
causation
 Student of
Hans Reichenbach
“Vienna Circle” aka
Ernst Mach Society
Positivists=Humeans

SCIENTIFIC “PROOF” (245-6 & 250-53)
“Proof” that Prof. Salvia’s pendulum
will not hit his nose depends on
mathematics and law of conservation
of energy.
The mathematics is proven [cf. Hume’s
relation of ideas], but what about
scientific laws?
SCIENTIFIC “PROOF” (245-6 & 250-53)
Logic of scientific “proof” of laws is
fallacious (250-53):
1) If law is true, then we will observe
specified phenomena
2) We do observe specified phenomena.
SO: 3) Law is true.
[fallacy of affirming the consequent]
MODERN ANSWERS 1
SCIENCE WORKS (257-8)
SO we should accept it.
BUT: we cannot conclude science will
continue to work—unless we assume
the scientific method. This, however,
is circular.
MODERN ANSWERS 2
KANT’S THEORY (258)
Uniformity of nature is a priori truth.
BUT, as Hume said, we can conceive of
natural chaos:
“May I not clearly and distinctly
conceive…snow [that] has yet the
taste of salt or feeling of fire?”
[cf. clarity & distinctness – Descartes]
MODERN ANSWERS 3
POSTULATION (258-9)
Uniformity of nature is postulate of
science.
BUT, this begs the question [assumes what
needs to be proven]:
“…postulating…has many advantages…as
the advantages of theft over honest toil”
Bertrand Russell
MODERN ANSWERS 4
Sir Karl POPPER (260-61)
Science is conjectural.
BUT: this “deprives science of its
predictive function.” (261)
Note: we will consider Popper in more
detail in the next class.
MODERN ANSWERS 5
PRAGMATISM (261-3)
i) Either nature is uniform or it is not.
ii) If nature is uniform, then we should use
scientific method.
iii) If nature is not uniform, then we are “out
of luck” anyway.
SO: iv) We have much to gain, nothing to
lose, in assuming nature uniform.
[note similarity to James, pp. 106-14]